And I want it to be clear this should be a matter of consent. I should have a right to veto use of GenAI to alter the text of my book, to forbid my book being fed into any LLM including proprietary, and to veto its use in associated areas--cover, design, translation, audio, and marketing copy.

Show Post

I have called for the SoA to facilitate whistleblowing from staffers and authors alike, in the absence of voluntary transparency. I would also like publishers to explain why, if they believe GenAI use is either ethical and valuable, they aren't prepared to say how they're using it.

Show Post

The Society of Authors has withdrawn from the ill-conceived concession to the dark side that was the "ethical GenAI" charter because of the mass and vocal outrage of authors. Publishers need to be made afraid of this level of anger too.

Show Post

Apparently the Charter was so vague (just a bunch of fluffy aspirations) because publishers had indicated they wouldn't sign up to anything more specific (such as measurable and meaningful commitments to transparency and consent). That will not do.

Show Post

GenAI is unethical across many axes including environmental, political, and because the industry is based on mass theft from authors and other creatives. It's also incredibly reputationally damaging for people who are being accused of its use. I don't think any publisher has the right to tarnish me.

Show Post