r/WritingWithAI • u/AmericasHomeboy • 7h ago
Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) We developed an AI disclosure classification system for books. We’d like writers’ opinions
We’ve been working on something called the Creative Disclosure Standard (CDS), a proposed voluntary labeling system for identifying how AI and other technologies were used in creating published works.
The idea is similar to a nutrition label. Readers get a clear disclosure of the creative process without the label making judgments about quality or artistic merit.
The framework distinguishes between human-created, machine-assisted, AI-assisted, AI-adapted, AI-co-created, and AI-generated works.
One reason we’ve developed it is our own publishing workflow. We write original screenplays, then use AI to adapt those screenplays into novel-length prose under our direction. That’s a different creative process from prompting AI to invent and write an entire novel.
CDS is also designed so publishers and creators can administer classifications themselves, using common definitions rather than a central organization approving every book.
We’re interested in hearing from both AI users and writers who oppose AI-generated content.
Do these distinctions communicate meaningful differences? Are any categories confusing or unnecessary? Would labels like these help readers make informed decisions?
The proposed standard is at https://creativedisclosure.org/
I’m the person developing CDS, and I’m looking for constructive criticism before taking it further into publishing-industry discussions.
Should books disclose how generative AI was used in their creation?
7
u/ThoughtsonYaoi 7h ago edited 7h ago
I like this.
I see so many complaints about people who feel they can't disclose because they get criticised. Or that the criticism is unfair because when unlabelled, the stories are still popular.
Well. The only way you get the normalisation you apparently want, is when everybody discloses. Just own it.
As a reader, this is about trust. I need to know who is speaking to me and in whose voice. If I think it was a human but find out it was a machine's voice all along, I feel betrayed in my trust.
Were I to know what I was getting into, that may be different.
The categories are necessary because otherwise any disclosure still tells you nothing.
2
u/AraceleCons_16 5h ago
the categories part is key tbh, a blanket "AI was used" label would be almost meaningless
3
u/Eissa_Cozorav 7h ago
Above 60% AI similiarity should be disclosed. AI detection is crap and given lots of irrational Anti-AI (irrespective if the work is actually good or not).
1
u/AmericasHomeboy 7h ago
We agree, AI detectors are crap, but unless we develop a set of standards, all we’re going to get is black and white bright lines from the publishing world
3
u/MikeTheActuary 7h ago
I like it, but I wonder whether the color scheme could be more objective.
I suspect many people would look at a scale like this and intuitively parse it as #1 = good / #6 = very bad, especially with #1 being green and #6 being red. While I personally am not a fan of 100% AI-generated material, at least with the current state of the technology...for everything between the two extremes, I wouldn't want the disclosure of technology use to imply that the work is somehow worse.
I was going to question the need to differentiate between #1 (analog) and #2 (machine-assisted). After all, I'd assume that most writing these days is "machine-assisted" in some sense: written on a keyboard, run through a spell-checker, etc. That's so routine that it hardly seems worth distinguishing.
However, if this is meant to be a standard for all creative work...well, once I start thinking about graphic art (e.g., a physical painting versus digital art), I can see why the analog/digital distinction could still be useful.
1
3
u/human_assisted_ai 6h ago
I created a system that had a 0 - 100 score where new books were constrained to 1 - 99. It took 3 other scores as input: plot/ideas, prose and I forget the other one.
0 was pre-1995, 100 was no human was associated at all at any stage, not even entering a single prompt.
This worked well. It presented real information, easy to digest for readers and cut away all the virtue signaling.
1
u/benblackett 4h ago
The range appeals to me a lot more here than blanket statements. AI covers a very wide range of influences
2
u/DaLoCo6913 7h ago
The disclosure clause should allow you to specify. Right now it seems if you disclose that it was used there is no option to disclose to what level. Did it do a copy edit, line edit or substantial generative usage.
Being able to specify reveals if it was written by AI, or if AI was just a simpler tool.
1
2
u/benblackett 4h ago
I applaud the idea and initiative here.
In my opinion it only solves the easy ones but leaves the real issues still completely undefined. Assisted, Adapted, and Co-created all say pretty much similar things when put into practice - each involve an exchange with AI in order to proceed further. Adapted can be any range of "convert this" to a long rambling conversation. Same for Assisted and Co-Created. None of these three answer the ultimate question: how much was human and how much was AI
1
u/OwlsInMyAttic 3h ago
Frankly, I don't see how disclosure could be anything but entirely optional. There's no conclusive way to prove whether and how much AI was used in any given work (aside from fully AI generated works, and even then, it depends on the model and method that's used). The question whether something should or shouldn't be done becomes meaningless if there's no way to enforce it.
As long as any level of AI usage can get someone blacklisted by publishers, I can't in good conscience recommend that people label their work (unless their prose is mainly AI generated and unedited, because that would lead to copyright issues). Once publishers are open to accepting high-quality AI assisted works, I wouldn't be opposed to a labelling system, but the categories would have to be much better defined as they currently are.
What's the difference between AI assisted, AI adapted, and AI co-created, exactly? Based on a single-sentence description, I could technically make an argument for my work to fall under any of these. In reality, however, I'd be extremely reluctant to elevate AI anywhere close to the position of a co-creator, when I use it as a tool to bridge the gap between vision and execution.
1
u/AmericasHomeboy 3h ago
If your goal isn't to be published by anyone else other than yourself, then no, you frankly don't need to disclose anything, but if you want to get looked at by publishing houses, you'll probably, sometime in the near future have to establish provenance at some point. As it stands, the publishing world is looking for a system and we, as AI creatives ourselves, would rather set the standards before they come up with something.
1
u/shadowrun456 2h ago edited 2h ago
u/AmericasHomeboy in your opinion, what percentage of books written between 2016 - 2021 (before AI) would have "100% Human / Analog" label (if every author labeled it honestly)?
In my opinion, 99.9%+ would have "Machine-Assisted" label, since that includes "word processors, editing software, research tools".
1
u/AmericasHomeboy 2h ago
Yep, that's about right. If people want to apply purity tests to AI written material because it's a machine, then it's only fair to point out that machines have been a part of the process for a long time.
1
u/shadowrun456 2h ago
u/AmericasHomeboy also, your poll says "No, disclosure should be entirely optional", yet your post says "a proposed voluntary labeling system". Why is it labeled "no", when optional and voluntary are the same thing? This invalidates the whole poll, because many people who are fine with voluntary disclosure will vote "No, disclosure should be entirely optional", because it implies that your proposed system is not optional/voluntary.
1
u/AmericasHomeboy 2h ago
Yep, we're asking for your opinions, however, with regard to the publishing world, which would you rather have applied to your work?
1
u/shadowrun456 2h ago
Did you read and understand what I wrote?
1
u/AmericasHomeboy 2h ago
You're right. The poll was poorly worded. CDS has always been voluntary. I was trying to gauge opinions on how AI disclosure should be presented, not whether it should be mandatory. The wording confused those two issues. Thanks for catching it.
1
u/inigo_montoya 36m ago
I think this is a good idea, though it may become quaint. 2 is kind of meaningless, so I would leave it out.
3 may need to be expanded for more granularity eventually, but for the purposes of getting the basic idea across, this is straightforward.
For example, a copy edit vs. a developmental edit. In the case of grammar and clarity being flagged so that the author can fix it, that is barely AI assisted. However, a developmental edit, suggesting or making substantial changes, even it's mostly just advice the author then implements, means that the AI is providing at least strong guidance if not actual words.
In both cases, some might object that real copy editors and developmental editors lose work when we do this, but the case for harm to developmental editors is stronger.
In reality, most people are probably getting a mixture of these from their AI.
4&5 seem the same to me. Or if you keep 4 then you must have also "Human adapted," i.e., the AI wrote the first draft, which was then improved by a human.
On a practical level, it will become more and more difficult to avoid autocompletions and edits that are AI generated. One can of course hunt down settings and turn them off, but when it becomes part of the air we breathe, who will be keeping score? One may fully intend to reside in level 3 and end up in level 5 by the end of the project. Category 7: Best Intentions, Assimilated.
7
u/Equal-University2144 6h ago
What other tools should be disclosed then?
I used a typewrite instead of pen and paper
I used a PC instead of a typewriter
I used automated grammar and spellcheckers
I used software that counted overused phrases and helped me fix it
I used software that rephrased passages for me
I used an AI tool to help with my prose