It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
She used AI the way I as a writer use my friends online: to say things, see what they say back, and get it to make my brain create new connections.
As a writer, I think a lot about the ethics of using AI in the creation of art. As of right now, here's some opinions/ethics I've formed:
1. there's no such thing as AI art, just AI pictures, AI books, etc.
2. AI can be used in the creation of art, but what matters is that the final contributor to the creation is human.
This one is a little fuzzy and I'm still working on how to formalize it, but the broad strokes of my intent here is that AI pictures where you draw a blue line at the end and say "I did the final work, so it's art" counts as art if the point was the blue line rather than as loophole-finding.
For example, if you're writing a novel that is about AI and you use AI to generate the stuff the AI says, this could be valid art if the point is to interrogate the use of AI in writing as opposed to just to be lazy and avoid having to write some of your book.
But what's important to me is that we explicitly exclude "I made this painting and then asked AI to make it prettier because I am not technically proficient and want it to look dope," which is why I require the final touch to be by a human.
3. AI is distinct from other art-creation tools (like paints, brushes, CNC machines, 3D printers in that it does not permit reproducibility).
I'm still working on how to formalize this, but y'all get the idea, right? AI is kind of a black box that spits out stuff. We can't explain how exactly, and it's stochastic. But the application of paint is also stochastic because of chaos.
No one has flawless control over the flow/spread of paint. Capillary action will have some "randomness" to it. But that randomness is minute, possibly irrelevant to the result. E.g., the Mona Lisa wouldn't be affected if the paint that Leonardo applied had, at a microscopic level, adhered/penetrated the canvas differently.
Overall, the "core" of the work needs to be human-driven. Tools don't affect this, but AI is a special tool that gets higher scrutiny than other tools because it purports to replace the human. It's referred to as "intelligence." Even if it isn't actually intelligent, it is intended to be, and is interpreted and used to replace.
If it's not used to replace, then it's (probably) okay. Still working on my general framework.
But I think about it a lot because I recognize the benefits of AI in art creation. Writing is often lonely, and I do find immense value in just throwing shit at a wall, seeing what comes back, and riffing on that. I don't drop AI stuff into my works.
But I will often be like "oh that's a really cool idea" and then expand/mutate that. Like, "where might a mother and daughter go to bond?" and AI gives me back "spa" with statements like it's dimly lit, relaxing, etc.
If I then write 5,000 words about a trip to the spa, I don't see that as AI writing my work. I see it as comparable to asking my buddy at the bar who isn't attempting to be artistic when talking to me about this kind of thing. Might not (probably doesn't) know I'm even thinking about writing when I ask.
Anyway, that gets to the issue of whether the use of AI makes the end result art or not. That doesn't address ethical issues about using it.
Personally, I feel like the environmental issue is a non-starter. I don't play video games. I don't really use much single-use plastic. My electrical usage is minimal excluding AC. Not only do I think my AI use still leaves me below average electricity user for someone in my country, but I think if I were an average person, my AI usage consumes less power than my peers playing video games or running a pool pump at their house or something.
I think I read that the sum total of all AI usage in the US increases our electrical consumption by some minuscule amount per person. Less than 1%? Seems like a useless line of argument.
Better to talk about how artists' works (and other people's works) were "stolen" (sometimes literally, sometimes just in spirit because a EULA permitted this but users wouldn't have liked it). That seems wrong, and it's the hardest issue for me to deal with personally. I try to minimize AI usage for this reason.
And still better is to talk about how AI seems to be bound for replacing humans-in-art. One of the great joys of being human is that we can create art. And AI is facilitating people abandoning artistic creation in favor of querying AI.
"I wanna read a She-Ra fanfic about XYZ, Gemini write one." How about you write it yourself and experience the frustrating, vinegar-strokes joy of the creative act? Don't throw away an important part of being human for expedience's sake!
I have much less concern about art for non-artistic, non-artisanal purposes; write that one-off bash script with AI! Artisanal-purposes seems more iffy. Like writing a small app to help with a task and then putting it up on Apple Store to share with others. On one hand, it helps. On the other hand, it does hurt the artisanal nature of code creation (part art, but with non-artistic utility).
Jiminy crickets this is probably my longest comment on HN ever. Would love to see some responses because I am trying my best. I think Ai is great for many tasks. But fuck AI in art. I will never knowingly read an AI book. I will never knowingly view AI art-as-art.
(Edited to add more paragraph breaks. Yes, I'm a writer. No, I won't do four rounds of drafts of a HN comment.)