I know what I said before. And I stand by it.

But.

I do need to state my specific position on using AI:

  1. I fully recognize that AIs were largely trained through theft. I don’t agree with the position at all.
  2. That means that I avoid using generative AI for creative work. Anything I request from AI cannot have a creative element.
  3. But wait! Did I not state that I use AI to generate code? Yes, I did, and that’s what I still stand behind. And this is where I need to be very clear: creativity is one thing, logical procedure and process is another.

For what I do, programming is codified logic. (Yes, programming is also expresses creative works, such as video games and animation. But I don’t do any of that.) I know the logic, which I give to AI to write out in a specific language. I still review it, making sure it’s what I envisioned and meets my expectations. AI is my assistant when I need code in a language and/or framework where my skill is lacking. I know what I want and I know how to express it. And that part of the AI was trained by industry standards and specifications, and open source code. And yes, I tell AI is wrong and to fix it when it makes mistakes, no different than reviewing the code of another human developer.

Which brings me to my creativity, notably writing. To wit:

I do not use any AI to write my stories for me.

Ethics of doing that aside for a moment, the single biggest reason: Why would I want to give that away?

For me, writing is fun, it’s a release, it’s therapy, it’s escapism. I don’t watch TV anymore, I barely watch movies. I write. That’s what I truly love doing. And I sure as hell ain’t giving that away to any machine.

But I do use AI in my writing process. I’m not a physicist, I’m not a mathematician, I am not an engineer, a surgeon, a botanist, a chemist, an electrician, a farmer, a lawyer, a mechanic. I might know enough about a lot of those things, but it is a very short sentence to take me from a general statement to something that could incur angry letters from those in those professions.

AI is a good research assistant. I can ask it to extrapolate difficult theories to give me a scientific background for a plot point. I can have it explain a deep concept that I haven’t the grey matter to comprehend.

For example, in my completed draft for Fly Me to the Moon (the book is now being pitched, updates to come when I have any), I needed to know the reentry timing of a large vehicle returning from the Moon. Apollo and Artemis missions have given us data to accurately approximate such things, but only for smaller vehicles — a large one requires more complex math, far more than I can do on my own.

To be clear: it’s possible for me to figure out, but I could easily get it wrong and I haven’t anyone to confirm my approach. AI, on the other hand, has those formulas and can extrapolate the change in variables. And yes, I asked the AI for its evidence, because I wanted to check the math, myself. (I also checked with a completely different AI for a second opinion.)

It wasn’t a major plot point and having the timing was really only to try and mitigate nit-picking. (I watched a lot of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where nit-picking was a full-time profession for some.) It’s realism and pacing, important and most importantly, fact-based.

But I wrote that scene myself. And every other scene, and every scene I will ever write. Because that is a passion, and I don’t give that away willingly.

It’s also therapeutic. Writing my thoughts down – like I’ve done in this blog for years – is my way of chatting to a silent psychiatrist and avoid the discussion about my mother.