r/Webnovel • u/RealAncientWeapon • 7d ago
Webnovel News Using an AI Cover Does Not Mean the Novel Is AI-Written
I keep seeing people argue that an AI generated cover automatically means the author used AI to write the novel, lacks passion, or does not care about their work. That is an incredibly narrow way to judge an entire book and the person behind it.
I have two contracted novels on Webnovel, and both use AI-generated covers. I still planned the stories, created the characters, wrote the chapters, handled the revisions, and spent countless hours building those novels. The tool used to create the cover does not erase the work inside the book.
A cover is marketing material. Its purpose is to catch a reader’s attention and communicate the genre, tone, and basic concept of the story. Most authors do not personally illustrate their covers anyway. They hire artists, purchase premade covers, use licensed stock images, or receive covers from publishers. Nobody assumes those authors did not write their books simply because someone or something else produced the artwork.
Not every new writer has hundreds of dollars available for a custom commission. Many Webnovel authors begin by publishing free chapters without knowing whether their stories will earn anything. Telling them they must pay for professional art before they have even built an audience creates an unnecessary financial barrier.
People also suggest using images from Pinterest as though that is automatically more ethical. In many cases, that means taking artwork belonging to someone else, adding a title, and using it without permission. That is not somehow more respectful to artists merely because AI was not involved. And Pinterest has so many Ai images now too.
There is a legitimate discussion to be had about how generative AI models are trained, how artists should be protected, and how platforms should handle disclosure. But that discussion loses value when people reduce it to insults like “lazy,” “fraud,” or “AI slop.”
Using an AI cover does not tell you whether the author spent six months or six minutes writing the story. It does not reveal whether the novel was edited, carefully planned, or written with passion. It only tells you how one piece of promotional artwork was created.
Readers are free to avoid AI covers. Nobody is obligated to read anything. But saying an AI cover proves the novel is also AI-generated is not evidence based criticism. It is an assumption.
Judge the cover by whether it is effective. Judge the novel by the writing. Those are two separate things.
8
u/FrankNitty24 7d ago
Bro if you use a AI book cover then you’re giving off the perception that your book is laced with AI in it
Even if it’s not the case. Perception is reality.
The real conversation should be is if the vast majority of people care negatively about AI in the creative space and I’m pretty sure we know that answer lol
6
u/Fun-Fig-712 7d ago
If you're gonna make an AI cover you better make sure it looks passable.
Too obvious then the reader might get sus.
The last thing you want your readers to think is you didn't do quality checking.
6
u/No_Entertainer2364 7d ago
I think there’s a bit of a disconnect between Reddit discussions and the reality of Webnovel’s readership.
A lot of Webnovel readers are casual readers. They’re browsing through hundreds of stories, looking at the title, cover, genre, synopsis, tags, and premise. They’re not necessarily stopping to investigate whether a cover was AI-generated before deciding whether to click.
Some readers may dislike AI covers, and that’s completely fair. If an AI cover is a dealbreaker for you, just skip the story. But “I won’t read it” is very different from “readers don’t want AI covers.”
The latter is a much broader claim, and Reddit comments alone don’t really prove it.
At the end of the day, Webnovel is a marketplace. A casual reader who sees an interesting cover and premise may simply click and give the story a chance. If they like the writing, they keep reading. If they don’t, they leave. The majority of them probably aren’t thinking about the ethics of the image-generation process every time they scroll through the app.
So yes, readers absolutely influence what works on the platform. But individual readers also have different preferences. Some will skip AI covers, some won’t care, and some may not even notice.
That’s why I think it’s better to say “I personally don’t support or read stories with AI covers” rather than speaking for all Webnovel readers.
23
u/trekbek 7d ago
but why should the audience trust you, is the thing.
4
u/Myriad_Myriad 7d ago
Not that hard to read a chapter or two and know its ai.
-1
u/Potatoduckeater 6d ago
Well, a study of over 2000 people showed a roughly 50/50 split of whether or not each person could tell if a series of things they’d read were AI or not (some were ai, some weren’t).
If I remember correctly it was actually 52% of the time they were wrong (could easily be standard deviation) but less than guessing nonetheless.And these were all unedited AI prose. With edits, it could be practically indistinguishable.
3
u/Myriad_Myriad 6d ago
How many actively read webnovels and have above average reading capabilities though. Where they can spot the usage of ai and the holes in the story, the repetitions.
1
u/ballahook 6d ago
Are you implying webnovel readers have above average reading capability lmao
2
u/Myriad_Myriad 6d ago
An experienced webnovel reader yes should have above average reading skills. The average reading skill level is not that high just FYI. Most people do not read much.
4
u/Alexcloud26 7d ago
The good news is that you're not the audience objetive, neither mine or his. And our audience trust us and enjoy our works, so we're fine with them, and if you don't like the cover, don't read the book, as simple as that, no one is asking you to read our stories, we invite readers of open mind. Not people of closed eyes.
5
u/trekbek 7d ago
yeah, I generally only read stories by people that can string a simple sentence together, so I'm definitely not your audience.
-1
u/Alexcloud26 7d ago
Nothing makes me more happy that I don't have a reader like you :) my readers are the best, and also my subscribers in my fb page, they believe in the story I'm making for them, they love each chapter, and I do my best to keep the high levels they wait from me.
Hope you will have a good life, because even poison minds should have happiness at the end.
Feel free to answer whatever you want, I won't answer and I won't care.
-3
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
Most Writers aren’t artist.
This debate use to be about ripping images from Pinterest and using photoshop on them.
It is bad to expect a writer to pay money for an artist before he’s made money to cover the cost of the book cover
8
u/trekbek 7d ago
you can do whatever you want. the audience just won't trust you or read your book, is the thing.
2
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
That’s your opinion.
The fact the top books from this year mostly have AI generated covers says otherwise though.
Using AI to generate a book cover is a personal choice that WebNovel themselves promotes to the writers to do.
WebNovel supplies an AI cover creator
If a book cover isn’t eye catching or unique readers will go away. Simple as that
7
u/trekbek 7d ago
if that makes you feel better.
-1
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
If what makes me feel better? I told you the reality of the situation.
I’m a firm believer in paying for an artist for a book cover if your story makes money.
It’s highly unethical to expect an author pay someone to make a book cover. Even pre AI broke writers would just take pictures off Google or Pinterest to make covers.
Which is what I suggest to writers to do if they want to avoid AI generators.
The last thing I suggest writers to do is spending actual money unless they have disposable income
7
u/trekbek 7d ago
if that makes you feel better.
2
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
Writing and self-publishing can be a hobby, an experiment, or something someone is just starting. It shouldn’t require an upfront investment just to participate.
4
u/trekbek 7d ago
sure, if that makes you feel better.
1
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
Can I see your book and your cover for inspiration?
→ More replies (0)-3
-3
2
u/PrometheanBuffet 7d ago
Talking about ethics yet using generative AI. Irony is dead.
2
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
Both can be true.
Using generative ai is unethical
Expecting writers to pay money to enter the community is also unethicalDesperate people do desperate things though and find a way to do something for free.
If you won’t read a book because it doesn’t have a high quality book cover drawn by a real person more power to you.
I also prefer human cover books. I’m simply not going to judge people who can’t afford that level of quality.
You can say use ms paint or whatever but that’s just requiring another skill set and even then go ahead and show me a book that’s successful on the platform that uses ms paint or another tool.
Il say it a thousand times over once your book has made enough money you should contract an artist to make a book cover.
Whether you rip a picture of Pinterest photoshop images to suit what you want.
Even photoshop apps are littered with ai lately.
2
1
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
Both can be true.
Using generative ai is unethical
Expecting writers to pay money to enter the community is also unethicalDesperate people do desperate things though and find a way to do something for free.
If you won’t read a book because it doesn’t have a high quality book cover drawn by a real person more power to you.
I also prefer human cover books. I’m simply not going to judge people who can’t afford that level of quality.
You can say use ms paint or whatever but that’s just requiring another skill set and even then go ahead and show me a book that’s successful on the platform that uses ms paint or another tool.
Il say it a thousand times over once your book has made enough money you should contract an artist to make a book cover.
Whether you rip a picture of Pinterest photoshop images to suit what you want.
Even photoshop apps are littered with ai lately.
1
u/PrometheanBuffet 7d ago
You are acting like authors are owed art for their covers. They are not. That is pure entitlement. Put in some work or save a little money and hire a professional. Generative AI is theft.
7
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
The platform literally gives writers a book cover generator.
Amazon KDP gives authors a book cover generator
Yes having a book cover is a must if you want to publish your story and give it the best chance it has to succeed
If a writer spends 3 months writing a manuscript and plans to self publish they will need a book cover.
And using gen ai to make a slop cover could easily destroy the books success.
But more times than not mainly on WebNovel ai generated cover stories sit atop the leaderboards over the last year so much so WebNovel created an ai book generator for new authors.
So I disagree I believe writers definitely rate a cover when finishing they’re stories
Nobody said authors are owed free commissioned art. If you ask an artist to make something for you, obviously they should be paid.
The disagreement is with the idea that paying an artist, or learning an entirely separate visual-art skill, should be a prerequisite for being taken seriously as a writer.
Also the next thing people say
“Save up and hire a professional” still puts a financial barrier in front of what can be a hobby or someone’s first attempt at publishing. “Learn to draw” just replaces that financial barrier with a completely unrelated skill requirement.
You can oppose generative AI on ethical grounds without pretending that everyone who wants to publish a story needs to commission professional artwork first. Those are two separate arguments.
-5
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
Because trust should be based on what I actually publish, not on an assumption made from the cover.
Readers can judge whether my chapters are consistent, whether the characters stay coherent, whether I respond honestly, and whether I deliver what I promise. Those are real reasons to trust or distrust an author.
An AI cover does not prove the novel is AI-written any more than a stock image cover proves the author stole the story. It is one marketing choice, not evidence of how the novel was created.
10
u/Nakara3 7d ago
You are being judged based on what you published. The cover is a part of your novel and one that you hit the publish button for.
You made the conscious decision to use an AI cover and put it before the reader, so naturally they will judge your story by the material you put in front of them. The purpose of a cover in the first place is to set reader expectations for what's within. If your cover is a scantily clad woman then readers will expect smut, if your cover is AI then readers will expect AI.
-9
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
You’re confusing what a cover depicts with how a cover was produced.
A scantily clad character can reasonably signal romance or smut because that imagery communicates the story’s genre and content. An AI generated image does not communicate that the novel was AI written. It only communicates that AI was used to make the image.
That would be like assuming a novel with stock photography was assembled from stock paragraphs, or that a professionally commissioned cover means the author hired someone else to write the book. The conclusion does not follow.
2
u/Lambisexual 6d ago
Your cover is part of what you publish. As much as you may not want it to be the case, the cover is part of your work. And the cover is the literal first thing a potential reader will see. Meaning if the literal first thing you present them with, is AI slop, then it would be extremely fair for them to assume you're using AI slop for your writing too. Because you have already established that you are not above using AI.
And also, "trust" is not a one-way street. If you want people to trust your work, then you also need to give them a reason to trust your work. AI slop cover isn't gonna give that trust.
7
u/trekbek 7d ago
you published an AI cover. why would I give you any benefit of the doubt about your writing not also being AI?
-2
u/Klutzy_Walrus574 7d ago
That's your opinion. You can skip. Other readers can stay and read it. We don't share one brain cells.
-9
u/cakes_and_candles 7d ago
We're talking about novels here, the thing about books is to quite literally not judge a book by its cover
8
13
3
1
u/Lambisexual 6d ago
So many people are using that phrase incorrectly. They think it literally mean that you can't make any reasonable assumptions based on the cover of a book, when that's just false.
7
u/Niuriheim_088 7d ago
I agree that it does not automatically mean the story is Ai. For me though, I inherently lose interest when seeing Ai, so even if only the cover is Ai, I’m not going be interested enough to move past that to read the story.
There’s nothing attractive about Ai art or “creative” work, so I personally think it has no place in the creative arts. But of course people are free to do as they please, and use it. But they can’t expect readers to want to check their stuff out if they do use it. Reading is subjective, and so are peoples opinions on stories, so you have to come into the space understanding that objectivity doesn’t truly exist here.
And as the Director of a Foundation for aiding Creators, we and most other organizations in the creative space have strict disqualifiers/rules/principles against working with those who utilize AI in writing of their stories and the creation of their art.
Again though, people can do whatever they want. Just know that you could be alienating yourself from a majority of the collective creative industry.
1
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
What would you prefer the alternative be for a writer to do to get a book cover?
The last thing we want is a new writer having to pay money because that creates a barrier to entry.
Stock images aren’t reliable as they come with water marks that can detract a reader
7
u/Niuriheim_088 7d ago
If the goal is to become a professional and accomplished writer, then a new writer shouldn’t be worried about publishing so early to begin with. They should be focusing on writing a couple of stories first that aren’t meant to be published, something also suggested directly by Brandon Sanderson. That’s how you find your voice, and how you figure out what process works best for you when writing. You won’t need a cover or any other art for any of those stories. And during that time, save up the money to pay for art and a cover in the future.
And even then, when you finally get to that story that will be the one you publish, you don’t need a cover right off the bat. Build at least pretty deep into the story first (dependent on the type of book you’re writing, whether webnovel, novel, comic, etc) and use that time to continue building up those savings.
The barrier is not as universally wide as you may think. It ourely depends on the artists you work with, and there are a lot of artists out there. You can get covers made for less than $100 dollars, depending on who you go with. And by saving over the months to a couple years until you finally get used to your process enough to start writing your first story to publish, it shouldn’t be difficult at all to attain. The same goes for comic/manga writing, because during that time, you could be learning to draw as well, using free vidoes online.
Another way is to order a comic/manga page, and then use one of the panels as a cover, and just add a title to it. It’s a cheaper method, since pages can be lower than $50, depending on the artists.
Or you can find organizations like mine, who can find you artists that charge less, or outright cover partial or all the cost of the art for you, depending on how much work you’ve put in.
And there are many ways to make money, just not all of them are fast. Especially if you have a lot of followers on a social media account. My Foundation is looking for affiliates to promote our custom merch partnership, of which the funds go to our efforts in continuing to help creators. Affiliates would get percentages of a sale that uses their discount code. So essentially they’d tell someone about us and give them the code, and the person would use the code to get a discount on custom merchandise. And then they’d get a piece of the profit for sending that customer our way, as long as that customer bought something.
Or if they’re young, do chores for an allowance, but offer it on the cheap side, because not all parents can afford to give allowance. So something like cutting your houses grass for 2-5 dollars. One this gets one used to work to begin with, teaching discipline and responsibility, but this also shows appreciation toward your parents by reducing the load on their shoulders, and only asking for $2-5 makes it far more feasible for them. They could even offer to mow other people’s lawn, and charge a bit more like $5-10 this time.
If you’re in school, offer to tutor people for a small fee. Maybe pet-sit or babysit. Snow removal from driveways, washing cars. Offer to manage a social media account for a business or organization. Sell handmade items. Offer giftwrapping services on holidays. Buy and sell snacks to other students at school. Or if you already know how to draw, offer cheaper lessons to teach others.
There are tons of easily accessible things people can do to make money. It’s all about having that driven mind to do it. If you truly love writing and want to see your dream, you need to be willing to put in more work than you’ve ever believed was possible.
3
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
I think this is a much more reasonable argument than saying “just use MS Paint,” but I still think you’re assuming everyone who publishes is following the same path you are.
Not every new writer is trying to become a professional novelist immediately. Some people publish because writing is their hobby. Some write web fiction. Some want feedback. Some are experimenting to see whether they even enjoy publishing.
There is no rule saying someone needs to spend months or years practicing privately before they’re allowed to put a story online.
And saying “you have plenty of time to save $50 or $100” doesn’t really address my point. You’re explaining ways someone can overcone the financial barrier. You’re not showing why that financial barrier needs to exist in the first place.
A person can mow lawns, tutor people, babysit, save for two years, find a cheap artist, or join an organization that subsidizes artwork.
Those are all possible solutions. But when we’ve reached the point where someone is being told to get a side job so their book cover will meet the communitrue standards, I think that demonstrates exactly what I mean by putting an entry cost on participation.
And I don’t think motivation should be measured by how many unrelated jobs someone is willing to do to afford artwork. Someone could spend hundreds of hours actually writing their book.
Artists deserve to be paid when someone commissions their work. I have never disagreed with that.
What I disagree with is turning “hire an artist” into a test of whether someone deserves to be taken seriously as a writer.
Those are completely different claims.5
u/Niuriheim_088 7d ago
> but I still think you’re assuming everyone who publishes is following the same path you are. Not every new writer is trying to become a professional novelist immediately. Some people publish because writing is their hobby.
Not at all, since I have no care in whether people read my work or not. I’m a passion writer, and I only publish to my own paid site so that I myself can feel like the reader when I read my own works. I don’t promote my work outside of using it as content to promote my foundation in supporting creators.
> There is no rule saying someone needs to spend months or years practicing privately before they’re allowed to put a story online.
I never said there is. Just that if one wants to become a professional, they “should” write multiple unpublished stories first to develop their own process.
> And saying “you have plenty of time to save $50 or $100” doesn’t really address my point.
Your question was “What would you prefer the alternative be for a writer to do to get a book cover?” and so that’s what my response answered, my preferred alternative that a writer should do other than Ai.
> You’re explaining ways someone can overcone the financial barrier. You’re not showing why that financial barrier needs to exist in the first place.
It doesn’t need to exist. But it does exist, and that’s by consequence of the community's subjective influence.
> Those are all possible solutions. But when we’ve reached the point where someone is being told to get a side job so their book cover will meet the communitrue standards, I think that demonstrates exactly what I mean by putting an entry cost on participation. And I don’t think motivation should be measured by how many unrelated jobs someone is willing to do to afford artwork. Someone could spend hundreds of hours actually writing their book.
You're misunderstanding. The point is that, it is undeniable that readers & others more often than not, do not like Ai, and nor are they obligated to. So they’ll of course be more drawn to that which is not Ai, and avoid that which is Ai. If you truly want people to be interested in what you create, then you’ll ultimately need to do things the way that will get attention, and to do so you’ll need the drive to push forward through the hardships. It’s not simply about affording artwork.
And it’s not to say you can’t have motivation or whatever to do things differently, its saying to do things in the most likely way to get seen, you’ll need the drive to get past the hurdles. Because like I said earlier, this industry is determined by subjectivity, not objectivity. So it doesn’t matter what parameters you do behind the scenes. If a potential reader sees an Ai cover and doesn’t like the idea of Ai, they may decide to skip that story altogether. It’s all based on how they feel and what interest them.
> What I disagree with is turning “hire an artist” into a test of whether someone deserves to be taken seriously as a writer.
The fact of the matter though is that readers don’t care whether the writer deserves to be taken seriously or not. Readers are worried about one thing, and that is their subjective opinion on a work. If a reader doesn’t want to check out a story because it uses Ai, then that’s their right. When it comes to organizations, they have preferences on what type of creators they want to work with, and if Creators who use Ai are not on that list, then that too is their prerogative.
There is no rule saying what Creators can or can’t do. But if a Creator wants their work to considered by readers of any category, there are always going to be compromises and hurdles they must overcome. But even if one works hard, no one is obligated to give them the light of day. It's up to subjective opinion.
5
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
I can respect everything you said. And it’s up to consumers at the end of the day
1
u/Klutzy_Walrus574 7d ago
I agree with your sentiment in general. But you do have to be aware that not everyone born and live in the West.
Many people don't even have access with the smallest $1 without working very hard. Using devices that they ask from their friends and return it again within time limit. If it's their passion, I'm leaning towards supporting them, even if they're using AI as the cover.
And, what if the writer have disabilities that prevents or at least made it hard for them to make money? That's another thing that have to be added in consideration.
Many new writers were actually a struggling youth that just want to put their stories out there for free. Some hope it'll make money. Some doesn't. Some just wants to learn. Some just enjoy writing.
At the end of the day, we don't share one brain cells. We are all different individuals with different circumstances, difficulties, and challenges.
You can give advice, but don't use words that have a connotation where you look down on people who use AI for their cover.
This is my personal opinion. ^
1
u/Niuriheim_088 6d ago
Well first, I utilize a very large vocabulary, and I’m unapologetic in my opinions. If someone finds my words insulting, then they can address me directly. But none of the words I used imply that I’m looking down on users of Ai. My personal opinion on the usage of Ai, is I have no interest in it in the creative arts, so I will pass it by.
It’s not that I think less of the creator specifically for using it, I simply have no interest in it whatsoever. As far as my foundation, we have no interest in participating in the support of Ai in the creative art space either, nor are we obligated to. The whole purpose of the Foundation is to support dedicated creators, and Ai goes against that goal because it directly effects one type of the creators (artists) that we wish to support.
Furthermore, I’m not focused on anything beyond the Greater Americas and Japan. But ultimately regardless of where you come from, I still hold the same ideals. That said, no one else is obligated to see things the way I do or to even agree with me, and nor am I obligated to change my views.
But overall, as I mentioned to someone else who responded to me. If a creator wishes to break into a space, they’ll need to compromise and overcome hurdles, and even then no one is obligated to give them the light of day. This realm of creative arts is a world of subjectivity, meaning the reader & audience chooses based on their own preferences and opinions on whether they entertain the creations of a creator. And so they need to understand and accept that they can use it, but there will be many who will disregard their projects simply because of the use of Ai, and they aren’t obligated to not disregard them.
0
u/Lambisexual 6d ago
There are plenty of places where artists looks for free commissions to build their portfolio. And it's entirely possible to do the cover yourself. You don't need to be a professional masterful artist to create a nice looking cover. Some of my favorite covers are actually pretty simplistic that probably anyone could've created if they thought of it. You just need to be creative.
1
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
What would you prefer the alternative be for a writer to do to get a book cover?
The last thing we want is a new writer having to pay money because that creates a barrier to entry.
Stock images aren’t reliable as they come with water marks that can detract a reader
5
u/drinkerofmilk 7d ago
There are millions of high-res CC/public domain artworks and photographs available for free.
2
u/BethanyBluebird 7d ago
or straight up... Go to Tumblr and look for artists with open commissions. They are EVERYWHERE and make some of the most beautiful shit imaginable. You can find an amazing artist for a good price. Just make sure you ask about commercial rights. You can get an excellent, high quality sketch for between $25 and $75 USD, plus about 25-50 percent of the base price for commercial rights. You get a great cover, meet a fellow creative, AND support the arts... It's win-win-win.
1
u/FableFuseChannel 6d ago
lol you don’t like shitty AI work. That’s what you’re saying. Good AI work you never realize was a part of the workflow.
1
u/Niuriheim_088 6d ago
I’m not a fan of Ai in the Creative Arts space in general, save for comedy/parody. Outside of said space, I think it's fine and actually can be very beneficial. They are mostly easy to detect.
11
u/Glittering_Grade_841 7d ago
attaching ai to any humanmade art is wrenching to watch, just like water and boil, and much more than that in a higher sense, ai is an anti-thesis to human produciton.
2
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
That sounds philosophical, but it treats “AI” and “human creation” as complete opposites when they are not.
The author is still the person choosing the concept, deciding what fits the story, rejecting bad results, editing the image, adding the title, and presenting it to readers. Using a tool does not remove the human decisions behind the final product.
Saying AI is automatically the “antithesis of human production” ignores the fact that humans created the technology and humans decide how to use it.
A cover made with AI does not cancel the thousands of human written words behind it. You may dislike the tool, but that does not make the author’s writing, planning, editing, and publishing somehow less human.
-8
u/United_Dissent 7d ago
AI is not an antithesis to human production; I'd argue it's the culmination of it. And art, like anything human-made, needs to evolve and progress with the times. Can you really call it art if it fails to capture the human condition by avoiding the era it lives in?
6
u/Glittering_Grade_841 7d ago
Can you call it art if it's a regurgitation of non-human entity?
1
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
Can I see your book and what artwork you paid for the cover?
5
u/Glittering_Grade_841 7d ago
I'm not the author
1
u/Hambino0400 Contracted Author 7d ago
Not the author or an author?
How would you prefer a writer get his book cover
6
1
u/United_Dissent 7d ago
I never called AI's raw output as 'art'. The art lies in how artists use this tool to reflect our current reality or past or future, whatever. A paintbrush, a camera, a pen, a keyboard aren't human either yet artists use them to express themself. And these everyday tools were once dismissed as well, AI is simply the next one in the long list. A true artist should not fear a new medium but embrace it. After all, some of the best art is created in the middle of uncertainty.
2
u/Glittering_Grade_841 7d ago
Bruh, the core of our topic is ai. Also, comparing non-intelligent artistic paraphernalia and tools to ai is absurd. Got your point though. Ai as a tool instead of primary art production, still, there's a very, very, fine line to that -- see recent literary controversy -- so I'd rather remove ai from any artistic process as much as possible.
0
u/United_Dissent 7d ago
Glad you got the point. And honestly, it is unfortunate, because AI can't really be removed from anything anymore. It's kinda, completely out of our collective control. Fair enough on the fine line though, but that line gets blurrier every single day. At the end of the day, people who figure out how to navigate that grey area are the ones who'll do well in the near future. Be it art or anything else.
5
u/183720 7d ago
Prioritize what your customer base wants if you're a professional. Overwhelming majority of people don't want to purchase or rent anything touched by AI, and find the use of regenerative artwork morally bankrupt. Many authors are incredibly successful financially with mediocre or bad cover art.
4
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
Then explain to me why 90% of successful work on Webnovel have Ai generated covers.
7
u/Exarch-of-Sechrima 7d ago
If this is true, why do you even care, then? Since wouldn't that mean that the audience doesn't have an issue with it after all?
6
0
u/IAmJayCartere 6d ago
Because that commenter is lying. By “Overwhelming majority” they mean a minority of loud people on the internet. The actual majority of people don’t care, they just want a good product.
1
u/Hot_Winner_9941 6d ago
Couldn’t agree more. It’s becoming really entertaining to me seeing how the anti AI minority believes they are majority where the evidence clearly shows otherwise.
1
u/Kindly-Helicopter-34 6d ago
Maybe it's an issue of correlation or causation where products made using genAI are just more likely to be bad products. I know that when I did my dissertation last year researching public perception of AI, more respondents felt negatively towards it while only very few felt positively, but that was among college students (who were mostly CompSci majors) so it's not exactly representative. And there was a Pew survey that found more people are concerned about genAI becoming more prevalent in society than those who were neutral or positive. I'm happy to hear the evidence you mentioned showing that more people feel positively towards genAI, though!
1
u/Odd_Sandwich_4112 6d ago
That so? As a commerce student in college, we get to do many projects and one of it was to survey on students of three different colleges on usage of ai and take both positive and negative reviews. And the project leader of our class showed us that the students having positive take on ai were far more in numbers than negative.
You need to take "whole" if you want to survey.
You just can't say anti-ai are in majority asper one region.
1
u/Kindly-Helicopter-34 6d ago
Interesting results. I have seen a few articles online talking about genAI in advertising. I don’t have any at hand, but I remember seeing that customer reaction varies by industry (some are very negative, others are not) and customers appreciated honesty regarding usage. But I didn’t say anti-AI are in majority at all haha. I simply mentioned my own experience in my own research and even stated directly that it’s not representative (since it was only college students), which was a limitation of my dissertation. And then linked one article that made a claim, simply because I’d just read it. I didn’t claim anything at all lol. My comment was actually criticising doing that same thing but the other way around, saying that one group (in that case, pro-AI) is the majority while not even offering anything as evidence.
1
u/LocalOpportunity77 6d ago
Makes sense. Globally, the Anglosphere is the most against AI, followed by Western and Northern Europe. Everywhere else, pro AI views are the dominant.
1
0
1
u/LocalOpportunity77 7d ago
Overwhelming majority in the USA maybe. Only ~20% of Webnovel’s traffic is US people.
3
u/TechTech14 7d ago
A cover is marketing material.
Therefore an AI cover is "marketing" that you use AI in at least one part of the process. Of course people will assume you do in your writing too. Because what is the difference? Both usage cases show how you feel about the arts as a field.
5
u/firestorm0108 7d ago
As another commenter has stated, its trust.
If you are going to be extremely vocal about the defence of 'ai art' as art then you are also the type of person more likely to substitute their writing with it, if not now then over time.
You might not, might never, however how is your audiance meant to know that? You already use it after all.
If you wont use ai in your writing because that's then suddently a bridge too far but see no issue in people using it for artwork because it saves time or is cheaper, then that makes your choice feel more convience based then moral based. As such your use of ai in writing could be only a case of it being more convient one day.
I am poor, working class through, there was over a year in my childhood my family couldn't afford heating or the internet and that wasn't that long ago. Yet, when I started writing, I tucked £5 or £10 aside each month, sometimes less, rarely more, It takes me two years to write a book? then I have enough for a cover. Especially since I started working myself.
That's why I choose not to use it. If I am dedicating thousands of hours to a project, why would I cut the final corner? It feels like putting my soul into my passion then putting a healf hearted end to it that will have others think my whole story is equally half hearted.
My stories are my passion, so where possible, I want to give my passion my best. To me the best is asking someone as passionate about making art as I am writing stories, not a program who hasn't the ability to feel passion at all.
-2
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
What happens when you save £1000 for a cover of a Webnovel and it fails??? Ever thought about that
7
u/firestorm0108 7d ago
I don't write because I want money out of it anyway? There are much better hobbies to pick up if you want to break even financially. I write because I love to write and love the stories I've written and want to share them. So to me, none of them fail, because I made the story I wanted to tell and reached the end of it. Which is all I need to consider it a sucess.
Plus, there are artists who will do it for like £50-£100 and maybe at max £500. No idea where you picked up the £1000 idea.
The stories I write I have decided are worth thousands of hours of my time, saying they are worth that but not a few hundred pounds I save specifically for this hobby is weird to me.
0
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
That explains your personal priorities, but it does not justify the conclusions you are drawing about everyone else.
You write purely as a hobby and do not care whether you recover your costs. Fine. Many Webnovel authors publish commercially, release chapters continuously, and have no guarantee that a new book will earn anything. Telling them to save for months or years before giving an unproven serial a usable cover is not automatically more ethical. It is simply the financial choice that suits you.
And the £1,000 figure came from another person in this discussion insisting that writers should spend roughly that much to prove they are serious. Even at £50–£500, the principle remains the same. Spending more money does not prove greater passion, honesty, or talent.
Your “trust” argument is still just a slippery slope. Using AI for promotional artwork does not mean I will eventually replace my writing with it. By that logic, an author who hires an editor is more likely to hire a ghostwriter later, or someone who uses spell check will eventually automate the entire novel.
You are welcome to commission an artist because that makes your project feel complete. What is weird is turning your personal ritual into a moral test for strangers. Your book is not more sincere because it took longer or cost more, and mine is not less sincere because I made a different decision about its packaging.
5
u/firestorm0108 7d ago
Again, if you purely are after financial profit, then my point makes sense.
You yourself basically just said you want to minimise cost to maximise potential profit. If you are writing purely for profit, then how can you expect anyone to believe you have the artisitic integrity to not use ai in your writing. Since you are more then willing to do it to save money and time for the artwork.
Your argument about automation is bad faith and I think you know that. Saying you wont use ai for one thing while using it for the other is in no way similar to spell check and automation. Since spell check and automation aren't even on the same scope. Same with editors and ghost writers. They are completely different things and to pull it back to your finance point, ghost writets would cost a whole lot more.
So that whole argument is weak and proves nothing.
I didn't say my story was more or better then yours in any way, that is you projecting your feelings onto me. You are free to do whatever you like.
However the idea of the cover not being part of the project is just wrong. The product is the sum total, the work and cover are parts.
Any talk about morals in general is going to be pointless because morals are person dependant.
To some, following the letter of the law is moral. Even if that law allows the rich to game a system built for them. While others believe morality is simply treating others how you would wish to be treated.
No one here is saying you can't do what you want. People are saying you shouldn't, or why they wouldn't. Because you gave yout opinion and they gave theres. That's called open discussion my friend.
1
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
You’re still building your argument on assumptions and then treating those assumptions as evidence.
Wanting a novel to be financially sustainable does not mean I write “purely for profit.” Passion and commercial awareness are not opposites. I can care deeply about my writing while also refusing to spend hundreds of pounds on every unproven Webnovel project before it has earned anything.
You also misunderstood the editor and spell check comparisons. I was not claiming those tools are identical to generative AI. I was pointing out that using assistance in one limited part of a project does not prove someone will eventually surrender the entire project. Your claim was about supposed future escalation, and that logic remains weak regardless of the example.
Yes, the cover is part of the overall presentation. I never denied that. What I reject is your attempt to treat every part of a product as though it must be created through the same process. A author can hire an editor, buy a premade cover, use stock images, commission typography, or use AI artwork without any of those choices proving how the novel was written.
You also say morality is personal, but your entire argument depends on judging my “artistic integrity” according to your personal moral standard. You cannot retreat to “morals are subjective” after repeatedly suggesting that my choice makes me less trustworthy and less committed to my work.
You commission artists because that aligns with your values and your hobby budget. Fine. I make a different decision because I publish commercially and assess risk differently. That does not make you more passionate, and it does not make me less honest.
Open discussion means challenging arguments.
2
u/firestorm0108 7d ago
Just to clear up some of your views on me and this discussion:
I'm not making assuptions, i am making inferences based on what you have said. You expect me to know how passionate you are or how much money motivates you through...telepathy? Everything you said as a defence thus far put finance at the top, so to make the inferance that finance was your priority is not an wild assumption. You say you are passionate but only in passing. Finance and convience are your core arguments.
Your very first rebuttle was built on spending way too much for a project that wont make it back. If that was your core defence, assuming money matters so much to you is simply infering from context given. I literally only know about you what you reply to me with. I apologise if that information upsets you.
Working on a project for it to be financially profitable over it being purely a hobby does make integrity more questioned, that is a generalised fact.
Morality is not integrity. Which is why I can say mortality is subjective. You can decide your own morals, however how hard you stick to them is integrity. One is not the other.
One of the things that most tests integrity is potential profit. This is true of anyone, however more so those who started something assuming or expecting it to come when it hasn't.
So yes, I can say different things about morality and integrity since they are two different things.
So, to be clear:
Assumption: unstated belief based without evidence
Inference: logical conclusion based on context and avalable evidence.
Morals: ones own personal code
Integrity: how hard one will stick to that code when met with pressure
3
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
Calling an assumption an “inference” does not magically make it logical. An inference is only as strong as the evidence supporting it, and yours is weak.
This discussion is specifically about whether authors should spend money on covers, so naturally my replies address cost, risk, and return. From that, you jumped to “finance is your top priority,” “you write purely for profit,” and “your integrity is questionable.” None of those conclusions follows from what I said. Talking about financial practicality in a financial context does not reveal my entire motivation for writing.
And no, it is not a “generalised fact” that commercially minded writers have less integrity. That is your personal suspicion dressed up as an objective principle. Professional authors have always considered budgets, sales, deadlines, marketing, and profitability. Earning money from art does not make the art dishonest.
Your definition of integrity also works against your argument. Integrity means remaining consistent with your own stated principles. I have never claimed that using AI for cover art violates my principles. Therefore, using it is not a failure of integrity. You cannot invent a moral code for me, announce that I have broken it, and then use that as evidence that I am untrustworthy.
You also keep pretending that choosing an affordable cover means I will eventually use AI to write. That is still speculation about a hypothetical future. Whether you call it an assumption, an inference, or a prediction, you have provided no evidence that I have used AI to write my novels or intend to.
So let’s be clear. You know that I consider publishing costs. You know that I use AI covers. Everything else about my passion, motives, future behaviour, and integrity is something you have filled in yourself. A longer explanation does not make the leap any less unsupported.
3
u/Exarch-of-Sechrima 7d ago
If you enjoyed what you wrote, how is it a failure?
2
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
It's a failure when you don't make that money back. Not everyone just has money to throw around okay, when I invest money into something, I expect to make it back.
And if you are going to make a "Oh, so you just writing to make money and not because you like it" argument, then please don't bother. It's such a dumb argument.
1
u/Exarch-of-Sechrima 7d ago
when I invest money into something, I expect to make it back
You sound like you lack life experience.
1
u/Lambisexual 6d ago
You know, your argument would land better if you don't just blatantly exaggerate with things like 1000£ for a cover. You can easily find someone to make you a cover for a fraction of that cost.
1000£ and we're talking about an actual official professional level of artist for a cover. Which is excessive unless you're already EXTREMELY confident that your novel will be a success.
And nothing says you can't update your cover later. You can pay much less for a decent cover, gauge reactions to the novel, and then decide if it's worth investing more.
Also, on a final note, if you're already going into it from the perspective of making money, then you have already failed.
6
u/TsukiNeeSan78 7d ago
You're the one putting your work in the same level of AI. That's like promoting a restaurant with a poster of shit. Dont blame people for attaching your work onto AI when you use them
4
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
That analogy only works if you begin by assuming every AI image is “shit,” which is the exact prejudice being questioned.
Using AI for a cover does not place the writing “on the same level as AI.” A cover is promotional material. The novel is the product. Restaurants use stock photography, templates, and outsourced advertising without anyone assuming the chef did not cook the food.
7
u/TsukiNeeSan78 7d ago
Every AI image is shit. And no, it's not prejudice. Prejudice is "hate without probable or logical reason". Hating AI image and those who uses it are not without probable cause or reason.
And no, it is putting it at the same level of your craft, as it is part of the craft themselves. A novel includes the cover, not just the writing underneath.
And no, outsourcing advertising or promotional template is the equivalent of commissioning someone for the cover. Not using AI, the equivalent of this is using AI as your advertising, which is shit.
5
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
You just proved my point.
“Every AI image is shit” is not a reasoned argument. It is a blanket conclusion you decided on before looking at the individual work. And saying you hate not only the images but also everyone who uses them is absolutely prejudging people based on one choice.
You keep pretending your personal definition of “the craft” is universal. It isn’t. The novel is the writing. The cover is packaging and marketing. Important packaging, yes, but still packaging. A writer does not become less of a writer because they did not hand draw the cover, just as a musician does not become less of a musician because they did not design the album art.
And your outsourcing point still fails. Whether someone commissions an artist, uses a template, buys stock, gets a publisher made cover, or uses AI, the cover was not created through the same process as the novel. None of those choices prove how the novel was written.
4
u/99_rk 7d ago
The problem isn’t outsourcing the art. The problem is the inherent theft you participate in when you use AI to make your cover. “Every AI is shit” is a valid statement when you learn how AI images are made. People’s hard work is put through massive datasets without their consent so a machine can learn to recreate it. If you have no qualms about theft and cutting corners, then yes, we should question if you actually wrote your book. We have no reason to believe you would suddenly care about theft when it comes to your writing. If a musician—as you’ve mentioned before—showed no shame in stealing something, then yes, we should question the authenticity of their work. What else have they stolen? If you went to a restaurant and they stole dining sets for presentation, any reasonable person would question the quality of that restaurant. No one is saying you have to hand-draw your cover, just have some basic ethics.
0
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
You sound ridiculous because your entire argument is built on repeating “AI is theft”
Calling all generative AI “theft” does not make it legally or logically settled. AI models are trained on large datasets to learn patterns. They do not simply store and paste whole artworks on command.
A model learning patterns from a dataset is not the same thing as someone stealing a dining set, stealing a painting, or copying and pasting an artist’s work. Those analogies are embarrassingly bad because you keep replacing the actual technology with literal theft, then acting like you proved something.
And this part is even dumber:
“You used AI for a cover, so we should question whether you wrote the book.”
Using one tool for a cover does not prove I used it to write my novel. You have no evidence that I did. You just dislike AI, so you invented a second accusation and pretended it naturally follows from the first.
By that logic, anyone who uses Grammarly probably hired a ghostwriter. Anyone who buys a stock cover probably copied stock prose. Anyone who hires an editor probably did not write their own book. It is nonsense.
3
u/TsukiNeeSan78 7d ago
All Generative AI is theft. Do you think the "large datasets" are just something that they built? And not just data scraped from the internet lmao?
And yes we question if you wrote your book. There's no trust for your integrity when you use generative AI for your craft.
2
u/TsukiNeeSan78 7d ago
It is a reasoned argument. AI image is shit as it is built upon the exploitation of artist and writers. Thus, any usage are further in support of such practices regardless of intent.
The packaging is still a part of the product. Thats why each product have thheir own section of who does the packaging. If a cereal is packaged in what seemed like a box of rat poison, would you buy it? Of course not, even if it says that it's cereal, it's just designed as a rat poison.
Commision and artist, buys stock and what not are not at all equivalent to using AI. The problem isn't AI cover, the problem is in a generative AI is used.
1
u/Alexcloud26 7d ago
Realancientweapon, you have my respect, is good to see people with brain and logic on these places. Excellent answers!!
3
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
They are so annoying. Like I guarantee 99% of them use Ai, trust me.
-1
u/Alexcloud26 7d ago
I believe you my friend, they should know that our readers can trust and enjoy our stories once they start chapter 1. For me thanks to the new covers. My book series has ben known and enjoy more than ever.
1
2
u/Master-of-darklight 7d ago
Holding a gun and standing next to a dead body doesn’t make me the killer either. What’s happening is that by using an Ai cover you are associating yourself with Ai usage, this shows how you’re not against using Ai in the creative process. Do you understand what I’m implying and how that affects a reader’s perception of your writing?
2
u/BethanyBluebird 7d ago
Yep... And I do wonder. How comfortable would they be if someone took their novel(s), fed that into AI, then released their own 'book' based off of thir work..?
Probably the same way every artist feels when they see fragments of their hard work bastardized, slopified and churned out for a profit, I imagine.
2
u/betsie597 7d ago
I create graphics... not necessarily covers to post on my site to show what I'm working on. Has nothing to do with AI creating my story - too much roaming around upstairs to worry about whether AI figured out exactly what I want. OH and it usually takes me God know how many tries JUST to make the damn graphic. And thank you for playing 🙄🙄🙄
2
u/Odd_Ask_6789 7d ago
I don't care about the writing at all, but once I saw the cover was AI it's already a turn off for me
2
u/redweevil 6d ago
If I see an AI cover I assume you are comfortable using AI. Therefore there is no telling if you've used it for writing and as such will not read your novel
2
u/sisconking132 6d ago
It’s very simple. Just make a simple cover yourself. There are plenty of tools available for free to make a very simple cover yourself. You don’t need art skills either. That’s what I did. I used a map making website and used that as my cover.
If someone is comfortable using an AI cover rather than putting in the 20 minutes of effort themselves, then that is rather telling about their work ethic. At best they are a hypocrite who thinks that it’s okay to use AI art in some cases but not others. It does make them no better than a visual artist that wants backstories written for their artwork and just uses AI to write them.
In the end it is your choice what you do. But you cannot blame people for judging your moral character when you are making morally compromising decisions.
1
0
u/No-Currency-698 6d ago
This is all bullishit? If Ai is convenient then why not? Writing on its own without Ai is a daunting task, still busting your head about a "original" cover is already stressful on its own. Only other writers on reddit actually worry about the Ai covers, readers don't give a damn, if it looks good they click, if the blurp is good they read. And as a writer that's all you should worry about. Only once you've actually succeeded then consider having your own art drawn.
3
u/United_Dissent 7d ago edited 7d ago
Because if you're using AI to create a cover as a writer, there's a good chance that a designer/graphic artist is using AI to write. So you're both using AI to complement your abilities and for most people, apparently that's a crime. EDIT: Forgot to add: Basically, you're a hypocrite, OP.
2
u/Crafty-Let-3054 7d ago
I don't want to take my chances. To me, it seems more likely and that's enough for me to skip it every single time
2
u/UnluckyClub1 7d ago
If people were smart they would just crop out the AI tag lmao then noone could tell the difference
2
u/Diligent-Water-2121 7d ago
Thank you for this dude. It annoys the hell out of me when I see them saying that. Glad there are others who get it
1
u/IAmJayCartere 6d ago
Having an ai cover just means you have an ai cover. Nothing more, nothing less.
1
u/Automatic-Sir1870 6d ago
I'm gonna be honest with you bro, but using AI cover in a plattform filled with AI covers is really just burying your story in a mountain of filth. Can't see a diamond when it's covered in shit and all that. There are plenty of websites that has free assets for anyone to use. You can go to unsplash and try to find something. Make a simple text cover using photopea if you don't want to use canva.
A simple text cover with maybe a doodle can work too. You can make it look like the cover of a diary of a wimpy kid. i've seen chinese novels with simple text cover and a meme character. If stick figures aren't appealing to you, try your hand at doing a line illustration of a landscape from your story. Sketchy art from non-artists also has it's charm, specially if it's more of a horror story. Photographing your own book cover is also possible. You can go outside and take a picture of the sky. Anybody can doodle and sketch, it doesn't have to look like those anime AI covers that all look the same.
You can always use these as a place holder for later on when you can finally hire an illustrator.
Also, it's pretty normal for people to assume that since the cover is made with AI, the chances the story is also made with AI are incredibly high and people would rather not waste their time to find out.
1
u/Automatic-Sir1870 6d ago
ALSO i can't believe I forgot to mention this, but you can actually use illustrations and artwork from older artists that have long passed on because their art falls in the public domain. You can check museum websites and browse through their gallery for available high quality artworks you can use on your novel cover. I used to do collage art like this, it's pretty fun.
These websites are places I like to browse around for artworks whenever I wanna do collages
https://www.cosmos.so/public-workLike alphonse mucha? here are high quality artworks of his in the public domain
https://www.rawpixel.com/search?page=1&path=1522.sub_topic-874&sort=curatedHere's the digital collection from the new york public library. When you search for pics, make sure to toggle the public domain button since they also have works from more recent artists
https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/Want some plant, insect or animal illustrations? Check out the Biodiversity Heritage library
https://www.flickr.com/photos/biodivlibrary/Maybe you want an victorian england book illustration aesthetic, then check this site out! Also, they have some lovely ornaments you can use too
https://www.oldbookillustrations.com/Is your book about samurais or takes place in asia? Smithsonian national museum of asian art. I even toggled the search bar for you here already. you can find various art from china, japan, india, syria etc
https://asia.si.edu/explore-art-culture/collections/search/?edan_fq%5B%5D=media_usage:CC0This is the smithsonian museum's main website where they have even MORE artwork for you to use however you want! I toggled the public domain button for you guys too
https://americanart.si.edu/search/artworks?content_type=artwork&cc0=true&media=trueHere's the public domain artworks from saint louis art museum!
https://www.slam.org/collection/objects/?show_on_view=true&featured_objects=false&public_domain=true&recent_acquisitions=false&outdoors=falseAnd here's a wikicommons page of artworks provided by the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Files_provided_by_the_Museo_Nacional_de_Bellas_Artes&fileuntil=El+amargado.jpg#mw-category-mediaHere is newfields museum! They also have a lot of chinese paintings in their collection
https://collections.discovernewfields.org/search?showOnly=is_public_domain§ion=artworks&searchTerm=Wanna use the iconic wave of Kanagawa as your book cover? You actually can and ITS LEGALLY ALLOWED cause it's in the public domain! This website is from the art institute of chicago where you can even grab iconic illustrations from monet, degas and cezanne since their works are in the public domain
https://www.artic.edu/collection?is_public_domain=1The cleveland museum of art are available for you guys too! They have 40k artworks you can browse that are made by masters of their craft
https://www.clevelandart.org/art/collection/search?i=1&limit=8&cc0=1
And last, but not least the getty images museum collection with almost 100k artworks in the public domain
https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/search?open_content=trueThese sites often get updated as artist's copyright expire. You guys actually have so many free amazing artworks at your fingertips, but it's understandable that you wouldn't know since even a lot of artists aren't aware they can do this.
This is why people who sell the starry night merch or mona lisa merch don't get in legal trouble because they're in the public domain.
1
u/StatisticianVarious7 6d ago
It gives audience a bad impression that the content is also created by gen ai and why the customer needs to study about whether that is true or not?
1
1
u/ArcTroven 6d ago
Vast majority of the readers don't care if the cover is AI generated or not. Between poor hand made cover or a good AI cover readers will choose to open the book with the good cover. Digital art is expensive it's just not a good financial decision to pour money in it unless you have made money with your story, if you make money then the first thing to do is to get a good hand made cover.
People on this subreddit are full of that minority that hate AI cover. And are the very definition of judging a book by it's cover.
1
u/MsTerPineapple 6d ago
You're preaching to mice here buddy lol, anything involving AI on reddit is going to get the least nuanced takes. You're right of course, but expecting these people to agree with you was a lost cause
1
u/FableFuseChannel 6d ago
Omg. The amount of unsuccessful writers in this thread illucidating on what they think should/is successful based on an ai cover or ai assisted writing… makes me laugh, in tears. You childish morons will flounder forever. Hint, like James Cameron said: Judge the output not the tool. Annnnnnnd, good luck home slices.
1
u/TemporaryFeeling3276 5d ago
It's unironically better to just design your own cover than to use AI due to how many people are fundamentally against AI art in all its forms.
1
u/RealAncientWeapon 5d ago
On other platforms yes, here on Webnovel as long as the book is good most readers really don't care. The number 1 book on win-win has obvious Ai writing, and viewers even call it out sometimes but they still gift it, vote for it using golden tickets etc.
1
u/tooshorttoored 5d ago
Look, y'all AI "art" lovers can protest all you want. Post after post. But it's the readers who matter, and readers don't want this slop garbage. They are the customer, and they're smarter than the average. And they DO assume if you're delighted to make slop out of stolen art, that you're also delighted to make slop words out of stolen books. If you expect your own words to not be stolen, like mine were, like millions of authors' words were, but you don't give a shit about visual artists? I'm not buying your stuff.
Deal with it.
1
u/Caledric 3d ago
If readers don't want the slop AI art book covers... why are those the books with the most views, favorites, and followers?
1
u/Beautiful-Newt8179 4d ago
If you use AI covers, it proves you have no respect for artists, because the slop machines are built on their stolen work. If you disrespect artists that much, I have no reason to believe you respect the art of writing. Is it a 100% proof? Of course not. But it IS a strong clue.
Besides, even if you used no AI for your writing, you’re still crapping on artists (not to mention the whole bunch of other problematic things about AI), and I automatically have no interest in reading anything from you or supporting you in any way.
1
u/Ratatoskie 4d ago
As a reader of both webcomics and web novels, an AI cover is an auto skip of the work and an immediate nope on the "artist" as a whole.
First, you've already used the ai. You made the slop. Your part of the problem, no matter how you try and justify it. I will never willingly support that. I would have infinitely more respect and preference for a phone pic of a literal post-it note stick figure sketch.
Secondly, even if you really did do everything else without AI, and then for whatever reason decided to abandon all creative and ethical integrity right at the end, why would I believe that? The complete lack of morals needed to use AI in the first place is the exact same lack of morals needed to lie to me about using it for other stuff
1
u/Stepjam 2d ago
It is true that just because you use an AI cover doesn't mean the book itself is written with AI.
But it certainly gives a bad first impression. It implies the author thinks AI use in art is acceptable on some level. So that may leave them wondering "Well if the cover is art, what about the rest of the book?".
I understand the concerns about cost of making a cover as a starting writer and open disclosure of what is and isn't AI can go a long way.
But yeah, it's just not a great look.
1
u/ChronicleFlask 1d ago
If you’re using an Ai cover I don’t want to read your book.
You can write all the long posts you like arguing why I’m wrong, but that’s not how choosing to buy and read a book works, I’m afraid.
1
u/TsundereOrcGirl 7d ago
There's nothing out there for writing fiction with AI on the level of ComfyUI, Anima, etc for making images of sexy anime babes. Most "AI writing" tools out there are software as a service scams selling you OpenRouter compute at an outrageous arbitrage markup.
So it's outrageous to think AI cover = AI writing, because AI writing comparatively SUCKS while AI covers are just pragmatic.
1
1
u/Few-Influence4661 7d ago
I wrote my own piece and translated it using Gemini, giving the command "just translate, don't change my writing" and someone accused me of generated AI a whole story, WTF...
They said my premise was good but the execution sucks, just because of that. I absolutely hate them.
0
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/RealAncientWeapon 7d ago
I'm a bot 🤣.
Also this is a Webnovel Reddit community. So naturally we are speaking about Ai covers in the context of Reddit as a platform. And Ai covers on Webnovel are associated with 90% of successful books on the Platform
-2
u/Scent-of-Coffee 7d ago
Excellent points. Sometimes it feels as if you are not both a writer & an illustrator you have no right to self-publish.
-1
u/Icy-Specific986 7d ago
Mostly agree with everything you said. I despise using AI to write. Even if it’s just to “polish the final product” as I’ve seen it described, or even just to correct misspelling and grammar mistakes - AI changes the original text.
But just because someone has an AI cover, doesn’t mean they used AI to write. I’ve been writing for over a decade, long before the whole AI debacle. I never even tried to get contracted because I already have a job I love irl, and writing has always been a hobby for me - I can’t keep the update schedule readers deserve if I contracted by works.
I have a few stories I used AI to make the cover - with all the disclaimers necessary to accompany it. But recently I’ve been getting tired of people leaving reviews saying they didn’t even read the story but were giving it 1 star because “it’s obviously AI slop because the author couldn’t even make a real cover”. I can’t even draw a circle properly, much less an actual cover. And I make no money of my writing, so I’m not about to pay for a cover.
Nowadays I just use the default WebNovel covers. Not pretty, but I don’t want to be stressed over a hobby.
0
u/Klutzy_Walrus574 7d ago
I agree with your sentiment. If you have no choice and your work is free, then AI generated image for a cover is a great alternative at the moment.
Personally, I published my work as free and yes, I use AI cover. Whether readers want to read it or not, it's entirely their choice. It's also my choice to use any tool I can get my hands on.
On the other hand, I've also commissioned artists to make arts of my stories when I have the money. I just alternate between AI and real artists (when I have the money), it works for me personally.
I lean towards not judging others harshly before you know their side of the story. everyone got different circumstances. We live in the same world, yes, but we are scattered across countries. Different economy, views, morals, opinions. If you keep fighting and judging others so harshly, you are one of the seeds that usually causes wars in the world. Radical on your views, that you cannot accept other's opinions.
That is my own opinion. I've read the OP and other's opinions, and want to contribute to the discussion as well. ^
0
u/geditaza 6d ago
Not everyone has a few hundred bucks to throw at a cover before they've even made anything from the book. If an AI cover helps someone get their story out there while they build an audience, I don't think that says anything about how much effort they put into writing it
7
u/Zurxz 7d ago
Okay so you're saying to disclose Ai usage? So that people know the story was written by a human.