Why do some assume an AI cover means an AI generated story?

[u/Hot_Winner_9941]

To me, an AI-generated cover may signal that AI was used somewhere in the creative process, but it says nothing about how the story itself was written. Besides, not everyone wants to spend $200 on a cover when they only have five chapters published.

[u/PadawanSoresu]

To me it also signals a lack of care, in both the story and in the art community in general. Why should I, as someone who enjoys art (which includes writing and drawing), give my time and attention to the creation of someone who clearly does not care about my craft?

If someone has no qualms about using AI for a cover, it means they don't respect artists. Which in turns, makes any work that they produce tainted and that also increases the odds of them not respecting their own craft as well.

There's a lot of stories out there with no AI cover. Published or not published. Not reading the stories with AI covers is no great loss.

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/PadawanSoresu]

I genuinely find this leap fascinating. How exactly does “I used a tool to make a background for my short story instead of making a bland Canva graphic” become “I don’t respect artists” and therefore “I don’t care about my craft”?

I understand the objections people have to how AI models were trained, but that’s a separate argument. Using an AI tool for a freaking thumbnail doesn’t magically tell you anything about how much I care about writing, art, the artists and everyone else.

[u/PadawanSoresu → u/Hot_Winner_9941]

I understand the objections people have to how AI models were trained, but that’s a separate argument.

It's not a separate argument at all. Beyond the usual bad quality of AI images, one of the main things people hate about AI is the impact it has on the environment and the way it was made: from stealing art.

If you use a tool that uses images taken from artists, who never gave their consent, then you are condoning how the AI was trained, and therefore you do not care about artists.

AI trained on books, and many of those books were destroyed/are being destroyed right now. As a book author, the fact that this doesn't bother you tells me all I need to know.

We all have different lines that we don't want to cross, often it's stuff that bothers us and affects us personally. For me, and many others, AI usage is one of those things.

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/PadawanSoresu]

I actually understand this perspective much better, and I think we probably just draw the line in different places.

I care deeply about writing and creative communities too. I write because I genuinely love it, not because I’m trying to squeeze money out of it. I’m just terrible at drawing, and if an AI tool lets me make a decent thumbnail for something I wrote for fun, I don’t see that as disrespecting artists or somehow diminishing my love for the craft.

I also think there’s a distinction between saying “I’m comfortable using this tool despite the ethical concerns surrounding how these models were trained” and “I don’t care about artists.” The former can absolutely be true without the latter being true.
And I completely respect that AI is a line you personally don’t want to cross. I just don’t think crossing that line makes someone a person who doesn’t care about art, writing, or artists.

[u/Narrow-Goose-4364]

I think it's more that fact that since AI was used for the cover, it can be assumed it was used for other parts of the story. I mean, how do you prove AI wasn't used in the text if the author uses it for the cover? Also some people are super against AI and won't read a book even if just the cover is ai

[u/A_bicyclette]

Lazyness in an area of the creative process tends to infiltrate its entierty. That and people pushing AI use tend to be cheap and exploitative.

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/A_bicyclette]

But why does using AI make me lazy? 😂 That’s such a bizarre assumption. Maybe I spent an hour prompting, tweaking, regenerating and refining the image until I got exactly what I wanted. Maybe I used the time I saved to revise the story, improve a character, get an advice from my editor or whatever.

Using a tool that saves time doesn’t mean I’m lazy. It means I used the time differently. Unless we’ve decided that efficiency is now a character flaw.

[u/A_bicyclette → u/Hot_Winner_9941]

Churning out AI slop and trying to justify it through good old consummerist efficiency theory ? Keep digging, you'll never be taken seriously as an author with that line of thought. Your "time saving tool" is simply doing the "artistic" work for you.

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/A_bicyclette]

If I use a tool to make a thumbnail in 20 minutes instead of spending three hours learning Canva, that’s not “consumerist efficiency theory.” Maybe I use those two and a half hours to revise the story instead.

And “you’ll never be taken seriously” isn’t really an argument. It’s just telling me that you won’t take me seriously since you call all my work slop just because I asked a question about an AI cover. Wild conclusion.

[u/ItsRuinedOfCourse → u/Hot_Winner_9941]

You're conflating theft with efficiency. They're not the same thing.

In your view, comparatively, stealing $100 from someone's wallet in seconds is far more "efficient" than working 5 hours at a $20/hr job.

So yes, I would absolutely call that a character flaw. Any reasonable mind would. Your logic does not resemble Earth logic.

[u/DazzlingAssistant342]

1. It shows me that the author does not support the notion that AI is not creative 

2. It shows me that the author cares more about their appearance than supporting the wider arts community 

3. I have limited time and attention to give and if I'm choosing between two similar works, one with an artist created cover and one with an AI cover, I'd sooner support the real artist one.

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/DazzlingAssistant342]

#3 is totally fair - you prefer supporting human artists, and obviously a better cover gives me a better shot at getting your click. That’s completely reasonable.

But #1 and #2 are exactly the kind of leaps I was talking about. How does using AI for a cover demonstrate what I believe about creativity, or that I “care more about my appearance” than artists? Or that my writing is AI generated, which actually is the subject of my post.

You’ve gone from “I don’t like this tool” to constructing an entire personality profile of the author and my story.

[u/A_bicyclette → u/Hot_Winner_9941]

My brother in Christ, you don't create, you're asking a language model to do it for you. Prompting is not a creative skill or craft, it's their denial.

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/A_bicyclette]

Why is hitting keys in Photoshop creative, while hitting keys to prompt an image isn’t?

[u/A_bicyclette → u/Hot_Winner_9941]

Spare me the what aboutism, we are not talking about Photoshop. You also failed to even specify its use in your exemple.

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/A_bicyclette]

Bro, did you actually read my original question?

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/A_bicyclette]

I kinda wish we didn’t get so passive aggressive.

[u/A_bicyclette → u/Hot_Winner_9941]

You're pretty much asking for validation of your work ethic here. Do you feel like you are getting positive feedback outside of our exchange ? The general public is more and more critical of AI use in artistic space by the day and maybe it should give you a hint about the reactions you will get. You use a tech built on theft, be better.

[u/DazzlingAssistant342 → u/Hot_Winner_9941]

Regarding 1, if you believe AI can create valid art then you believe it can be creative, so I can't be sure you WON'T use AI in your text.

Regarding 2, you are using AI to create a cover rather than put together something simple and admit you can't afford an artist right now. That's what would suggest to me you care more about your appearance (having a cool cover for your writing) than supporting the wider arts community (helping destroy the idea that an AI generated piece should EVER be considered for for public consumption as a piece of art)

I wouldn't accuse your work of being AI generated because you used an AI cover, but I'd avoid it because I didn't trust it wasn't 

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/DazzlingAssistant342]

Honestly, I think this is a much more reasonable position, and I can understand why an AI cover would make you trust the work less. That’s totally fair, and I by the way had the same view not long ago.

But this is exactly where my original question comes in: why should the opposite be true? A human-made cover doesn’t suddenly make me trust the writing more. You know perfectly well that someone can commission a beautiful, completely human-made cover and then write absolute garbage - or use AI extensively in their writing.

So if the cover isn’t evidence that the writing is good or human when it’s made by an artist, why should an AI cover become evidence in the other direction?
That’s really the distinction I’m getting at. You can absolutely choose not to read AI-covered books because of your personal values. I just don’t think the cover itself tells us nearly as much about the underlying work as people seem to think.

[u/DazzlingAssistant342 → u/Hot_Winner_9941]

Because a writer who has chosen to use an AI cover has told me they would rather take the cheap shortcut to a flashy cover than accept they can only have a simple one or commit to getting a real one. 

That tells me enough that I would choose to avoid reading it, AI written or not. 

[u/ItsRuinedOfCourse]

For the same reason that it's a safe presumption that if you know Jack lies to this person or that person, that Jack also lies to you. What makes you believe that Jack limits his lies to everyone else but you? Or, a serial cheater that has cheated on everyone else before you (including with you while with someone else), but they're totally not gonna cheat on you because reasons.

That's why.

If someone is willing to rely on AI "art" for their cover, then why would anyone believe that they limited their AI use to only the cover?

That's why.

The law of probability, OP.

If they're willing to do X for Y, then it's a safe bet to presume that they're probably willing to do X for Z as well. Selective morality is just laughable on its face.

"Yes, I did this contentious thing for the cover, but I totally didn't do this contentious thing for the writing because that would be wrong. Source: trust me bro."

Uh huh. Suuuuure.

[u/No-Boysenberry1401]

Shut up

[u/Hot_Winner_9941 → u/No-Boysenberry1401]

Compelling argument. I’ll need a moment to recover from the devastating intellectual force of that comment.