Just
over half (51%) of published novelists in the UK believe that artificial
intelligence is likely to end up entirely replacing their work as fiction
writers, a new University of Cambridge report shows.
Close to two-thirds (59%) of novelists
say they know their work has been used to train AI large language models (LLMs)
without permission or payment.
Over a third (39%) of novelists say
their income has already taken a hit from generative AI, for example, due to
loss of other work that facilitates novel writing. Most (85%) novelists expect
their future income to be driven down by AI.
In new research by Cambridge
University's Minderoo Center for Technology and Democracy (MCTD), Dr.
Clementine Collett surveyed 258 published novelists earlier this year, as well
as 74 industry insiders—from commissioning editors to literary agents—to gauge
how AI is viewed and used in the world of British fiction.
Genre authors are considered the most
vulnerable to displacement by AI, according to the report, with two-thirds
(66%) of all those surveyed listing romance authors as "extremely
threatened," followed closely by writers of thrillers (61%) and crime
(60%).
Despite this, overall sentiment in UK
fiction is not anti-AI, with 80% of respondents agreeing that AI offers
benefits to parts of society. In fact, a third of novelists (33%) use AI in
their writing process, mainly for "non-creative" tasks such as
information searches.
However, the report outlines profound
concerns from the cornerstone of a publishing industry that contributes an
annual £11bn to the UK economy, and exports more books than any other country
in the world.
Literary creatives feel that copyright
laws have not been respected or enforced since the emergence of generative AI.
They call for informed consent and fair remuneration for the use of their work,
along with transparency from big tech companies, and support in getting it from
the UK government.
Many warn of a potential loss of
originality in fiction, as well as a fraying of trust between writers and
readers if AI use is not disclosed. Some novelists worry that suspicions of AI
use could damage their reputation.
"There is widespread concern from
novelists that generative AI trained on vast amounts of fiction will undermine
the value of writing and compete with human novelists," said Dr.
Clementine Collett, BRAID UK Research Fellow at Cambridge's MCTD and author of
the report, published in partnership with the Institute for the Future of Work.
"Many novelists felt uncertain
there will be an appetite for complex, long-form writing in years to
come."
"Novels contribute more than we can
imagine to our society, culture, and to the lives of individuals. Novels are a
core part of the creative industries, and the basis for countless films,
television shows, and video games," said Collett.
"The novel is a precious and vital
form of creativity that is worth fighting for."
Tech companies have the fiction market
firmly in their sights. Generative AI tools such as "Sudowrite" and
"Novelcrafter" can be used to brainstorm and edit novels, while
"Qyx AI Book Creator" or "Squibler" can be used to draft
full-length books. Platforms such as "Spines" use AI to assist with
publishing processes from cover designs to distribution.
"The brutal irony is that the
generative AI tools affecting novelists are likely trained on millions of
pirated novels scraped from shadow libraries without the consent or
remuneration of authors," said Collett.
Along with surveying a total of 332
literary creatives, who participated on condition of anonymity, Collett
conducted focus groups and interviews around the country, and convened a forum
in Cambridge with novelists and publishers.
Many novelists reported lost income due
to AI. Some feel the market is increasingly flooded with AI-generated books,
with which they are forced to compete. Others say they have found books under
their name on Amazon which they haven't written.
Some novelists also spoke of online
reviews with telltale signs of AI, such as jumbled names and characters, that
give their books bad ratings and jeopardize future sales.
"Most authors do not earn enough
from novels alone and rely on income streams such as freelance copywriting or
translation which are rapidly drying up due to generative AI," said
Collett.
Some literary creatives envision a
dystopic two-tier market emerging, where the human-written novel becomes a
"luxury item" while mass-produced AI-generated fiction is cheap or
free.
When it came to working practices, some
in the study consider AI valuable in speeding up repetitive or routine tasks,
but it was seen to have little to no role to play in creativity.
Almost all (97%) novelists were
"extremely negative" about AI writing whole novels, or even short
sections (87% extremely negative). The aspects novelists felt least negative
about using AI for were sourcing general facts or information (30% extremely
negative), with around 20% of novelists saying they use AI for this purpose.
Around 8% of novelists said they use AI
for editing text written without AI. However, many find editing to be a deeply
creative process, and would never want AI involved. Almost half (43%) of
novelists felt "extremely negative" about using AI for editing text.
Forum participant Kevin Duffy, founder
of Bluemoose Books, the publisher behind novels such as "The Gallows
Pole" and "Leonard and Hungry Paul"—both now major BBC TV
dramas—is on record in the report saying, "[W]e are an AI free publisher,
and we will have a stamp on the cover. And then it's up to the public to decide
whether they want to buy that book or not. But let's tell the public what AI is
doing." Many respondents echoed this sentiment.
The research found widespread backlash
against a "rights reservation" copyright model as proposed by the UK
government last year, which would let AI firms mine text unless authors
explicitly opted out.
Some 83% of all respondents say this
would be negative for the publishing industry, and 93% of novelists said they
would 'probably' or 'definitely' opt out of their work being used to train AI
models if an opt-out model was implemented.
The vast majority (86%) of all literary
creatives preferred an "opt-in" principle: rights-holders grant
permission before AI scrapes any work and are paid accordingly. The most
popular option was for AI licensing to be handled collectively by an industry
body—a writers' union or society—with half of novelists (48%) selecting this
approach.
"Our creative industries are not
expendable collateral damage in the race to develop AI. They are national
treasures worth defending. This report shows us how," said Prof Gina Neff,
Executive Director of the Minderoo Center for Technology and Democracy.
Some novelists worry AI will disrupt the
"magic" of the creative process. Stephen May, writer of acclaimed
historical novels such as "Sell Us the Rope" expressed anxiety over
AI taking the required "friction" and "pain" out of a first
draft, diminishing the final product.
"Novelists, publishers, and agents
alike said the core purpose of the novel is to explore and convey human
complexity," said Collett. "Many spoke about increased use of AI
putting this at risk, as AI cannot understand what it means to be human."
Authors fear AI may weaken the deep
human connection between writers and readers at a time when reading is already
at historically low levels, particularly among the next generation: only a third of UK children say they enjoy reading in their free time.
Many novelists want to see more AI-free
creative writing on the school curriculum, and government-backed initiatives
aimed at finding new voices from underrepresented groups to counter risks of
"homogeneity" in fiction brought about by generative AI.
The research reveals a sector-wide
belief that AI could lead to ever blander, more formulaic fiction that
exacerbates stereotypes, as the models regurgitate from centuries of previous
text. Some suggest the AI era may see a boom in "experimental"
fiction as writers work to prove they are human, and push the artistry further
than AI.
"Novelists are clearly calling for
policy and regulation that forces AI companies to be transparent about training
data, as this would help with the enforcement of copyright law," added
Collett.
"Copyright law must continue to be reviewed and might need reform to further protect creatives. It is only fair that writers are asked permission and paid for use of their work."
Source: Half of novelists believe AI is likely to replace their work entirely, research finds
No comments:
Post a Comment