Tag: anti AI

AN ACCEPTANCE REJECTION: Why I turned down £40

So, I had a short story accepted into an anthology…but I’ve rejected the acceptance.

I submitted a much-rejected short story to an anthology call with a theme that I thought it fit well. Imagine how hyped I was when apparently the publisher agreed, and sent me an acceptance email with a contract attached. Finally, a home for this bittersweet vampire tale!

Except, when I read the contract, I noticed there was no anti-GenAI specific clause. This is a very reassuring thing I’ve been seeing a lot of small presses do recently, so the absence of one struck me as odd, especially as the open call specified ‘No AI stories’ in its bullet points.

My gut told me to check their store–admittedly, something I probably should have already done, but forgive me for taking ‘No AI’ at face value. God forbid a bitch have a little trust, a little faith in the world.

Anyway, what I find are book covers and backgrounds that, in my opinion, are VERY clearly AI generated. They have that blank, soulless quality about them, the uncanny feeling. Not to mention the unclear merging of random things into others that you might not notice at first, until you look closer and go ‘huh, why is that flower petal turning into the paper?’ or ‘What actually is that blue thing?’

So, I emailed them back and asked what their stance is. I’ve seen an odd amount of people agaisnt GenAI writing but not art, so I thought maybe that bizarre nonsense was happening, or perhaps they’d been duped by cover sellers.

Their response was wishy-washy to say the least. Essentially, it does seem like they’ve been mislead by cover artists and stock photo sites. They claim to try their best not to use AI but that ‘it’s getting hard to tell what contractors are using.’ It came across as very passive, not at all like the aggressive anti-GenAI pledges I’ve seen in other small presses put on their sites and in their contracts.

Basically, it gave me the ick.

I can forgive them (sort of) for being duped by an AI loser once, but these things are so clearly not by a real artist, that it actually boggles my mind.

Which is why I’m turning down about £40 that I actually would really like to have, because my car is playing up again and fuck knows how much that is going to cost. (Just found out it’s £500! FML!) It’s a bit scary as a budding author to turn down an acceptance, but I really don’t want to risk my writing being associated with art theft, accidental or not. At the very least, I want a contract stating they won’t use it, so if they do, I can point at it and say “Hey, as far as I knew, they weren’t gonna! I’m innocent of this bullshit!”

I’m not going to name names, this post isn’t to shame anyone or call anyone out. They are a small publisher at the end of the day, and I am not an asshole. This is mostly a post to other new authors that, sucks as it might and scary as it is, sticking to your morals is the right thing to do. As I was talking this through with friends, asking advice for a question I already, deep down, knew the answer to, one of them pointed out I shouldn’t approach this with a scarcity mindset. This is not the last acceptance I’ll ever recieve. There will be more in the future. Turning down this one thing isn’t the end.

Damn, it does suck about the forty quid though.

GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY WILL TAKE A MILE: A rant about generative AI and media consumption

(TL: DR) You have a moral imperative to not give money to companies that use generative AI, no matter how much you want to consume that media.

Recently in the news there has been plenty of stories about media companies, within the film industry in particular, that have been using AI generated images to cut corners in their work. While this has outraged many people who value the beautiful and hard work of human creatives, the more passive consumers of media tend to take a stance of “what’s the big deal, it was just five seconds/an ad/etc?”

So, what is the big deal?

GENERATIVE AI IS THEFT

Whether it is AI generated art or stories, or even voice-over, all AI generators must learn from something. Unfortunately, that something is more often than not stolen content from actual creatives who have not given permission for their work to picked apart and reassembled by a digital code.

These people put effort into their art—be that images, writing, or voice acting—and that hard work is taken by AI generators with no compensation. These AI generated shams can then be used by cheapskate companies to replace real humans with poor quality rip-offs.

LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL

I was incredibly excited for this movie—a 70s-style television show horror with David Dastmalchian leading? Sign me the fuck up, inject that shit into my veins!

My excitement was squashed when the news came that the studio had used AI generated images for some stills and the background of the set. Suddenly, a movie I was dying to see in theatres became one I refused to see on principle.

When it came out that the directors said that AI had been used but then edited, it was even more confusing—if they had just paid artists initially, they could have avoided ending up with the poorly edited nonsense they put in the movie.

Many people may think my refusal to see it in theatres is an overreaction— “it’s only three stills and the background, the rest of the movie is made by humans!”

My question is why couldn’t all of it been made by humans?

Afterall, it was only three stills and the background.

A24 AND CIVIL WAR

For those who do not know A24, they are an entertainment company. They have produced some films I absolutely adore: Ari Aster’s ‘Hereditary,’ Robert Egger’s ‘The Lighthouse,’ Halina Reijn’s ‘Bodies, Bodies, Bodies,’ and many more.

They are known for films that are original and weird, and often arty.

So, their recent use of AI images to advertise the film Civil War feels like a slap in the face to the fans. It is a complete disregard of the trust and goodwill they have built up in audiences over the years by pretending to champion a wide variety of filmmaker’s strange and unique stories. They have thrown it all away by removing that all-important human element, using poorly done AI to create false advertisements.

They have shown that they are happy to cut out creatives from the process.

How far will they be willing to go in the future?

YOUR MEDIA CONSUMPTION AND THE FUTURE OF AI

“It’s only a little bit here and there, it doesn’t matter!”

It is just the occasional little bit right now, but where does it end?

The truth is this: if the bigwigs in the media companies realise that they can use generative AI and people will still consume their content, then they will happily replace real creatives with it to save money.

Pigs who happily eat slop will not be fed caviar.

“AI is the future, whether you like it or not!”

Lazy and defeatist, this attitude is the only reason generative AI will ever succeed over real creatives.

If you prove to the media companies that they cannot make money with second-rate soulless imagery and writing, then they will not use it. They will do anything to protect the money. That is your leverage as the consumer.

All that needs to happen is your need to fight for quality must outweigh your desire to consume.

“If everything starts using it, what will we watch!”

There is multiple decades of film and television from countries all around the world from a time before generative AI concerns. There are loads of books and comics etc. too, for those worried about other forms of media.

You have plenty to catch up on without worrying about the latest AI generated sell-out.

“But I really want to watch this specific thing right now!”

Find a way to do it without giving the company money. We have the internet—it is not difficult.

Starve them of the money and they will lose incentive to replace real creatives with AI.

“I bet you’ll watch something with AI in!”

Yeah, I can imagine that at some point I will see a movie in the cinema and then it will be in the news that it used AI.

And I will be like “fuck sake” and try better next time.

Just try better next time.