The Pledge

I, John D. Parker, am the creator, author, and writer of my stories. I do not use artificial intelligence in the ideation, creation, or authoring of creative works attributed to my pen names.

About the Pledge

My Pledge, My View

This pledge and accompanying ideas are about my process, my view of the creative process, and the role AI plays within it. It is not a directive to anyone else or a comment on their process.

Purpose of the Pledge

The purpose of this pledge is twofold and simple: to authenticate the authorship and artisanship of my creative works.

Authentic Authorship

I want my readers to know (and I assume some want to know) that the stories attributed to me are conceived, created, and authored by me. This pledge includes my pseudonyms (pen names) John D. Paker, J. D. Parker, and any others I may adopt. (None are secret).

Authentic Artisanship

You are no doubt familiar with the adage, “A picture speaks/is worth a thousand words.” A loose corollary might be, “A story can be told with a thousand different wordings.” When I author a story, the creative process doesn’t end with the idea or the outline or getting the first draft on the page.

I want my readers to know that I painstakingly select specific words and phrases and I break grammatic conventions when necessary to paint the picture of that story for my readers. If one sentence is two words and the next is a hundred, it is because I painted the story that way for a purpose, not because I skipped the grammar checker. (Note: Though I aim for quality in all writing, I don’t apply the same effort to these blog posts).

Before anyone responds with, “What a pompous prig” or some more contemporary slam, let me clarify. I know I am not always (or even often) successful in painting the story. But I know, and now you know, it is authentically my art. Not someone else’s. And not an algorithmic mishmash of many someone elses’.

Need for the Pledge

For Readers

With the use of pseudonyms, creative collaborations, and ghostwriters, readers have forever been left to wonder who actually wrote the story they are reading.

With the increasing use of AI, many readers now wonder what wrote the story.

Rightly, many readers may not wonder at all. If the story is good, who cares?

By this pledge, my message to readers is, “Well, I care.” And maybe you do as well. If you don’t care, I write for you, too. You may just take comfort in the fact that I take what I do seriously.

(Note: Thus far, I haven’t seen any good authorship by AI, but it will come. My pledge isn’t based on writing or reading a good story).

For Authors

Virtually every writing-centric podcast and blog I have seen on AI embraces the increased and extended use of the technology in the creative part of the writing process. Preparing for making the pledge, I searched the Internet and my writing organizations for an existing pledge that I could sign onto. I couldn’t find one, so had to write my own—how novel. (Maybe the grand AI didn’t want me to find one).

Writing, publishing, and marketing gurus are saying, “Hey author, if you don’t embrace this new tool, you’ll be left behind.”

By this pledge, my message to other authors is, “So, you’ve been left behind. You’re not alone. In fact, you’re in good company.”

For Critics

Just a quick preemptory note for those who would criticize me as rebelling against progress. This is not a Luddite pledge. I do not fear technology. I am a degreed scientist and engineer who automated laboratories and businesses since the mid-eighties and concluded my technical career as an executive director of software development for a major media company. I write AI tools to playtest my game designs. I am no luddite.

The Writer – Author Spectrum

I used to identify myself as a “writer” instead of an “author.” The reasons were: (1) I write many things, like RPG supplements and boardgame rules, not just books and stories. “Author” to me meant books. (2) “Author” sounds a bit pretentious and the non-writing public associated the term with “published author.” Not necessarily in these specific words, “published author” meant (and to many, still means) “paid an advance by a major publisher for a book that was available in stores.” I didn’t want to be accused of being pretentious or a pretender. (I have been “writing” on and off for four decades and haven’t sought a publishing contract for the last three.)

Now, I identify as an “author.” Why the change?

The two terms appear to be necessarily on a spectrum. Consider the term “ghostwriter,” which I would say I have done, but I was given shared writing credits on the cover. So, the “ghost” part isn’t accurate. But why not “ghostauthor?” (Even the spellchecker doesn’t like that term). Here’s how the two terms appear to be used:

• Author: The one who creates the content or story.
• Writer: The one who executes on the author’s concept, putting it into the final words to be shared with readers.

The author and writer are often the same person, but are not necessarily so.

I’ll introduce a new term to help explain the roles in the creative process:

• Ideator: The one who originates the idea, but doesn’t necessarily flesh it out.

The ideator and author are usually the same person, but are not necessarily so. And potentially less so, as explained later. For many people who have not tried to author or write a story, the ideator role seems really important. Writing is all about having great ideas, isn’t it? Well, not so much. Writing is about developing good ideas into great stories. Ideas are “a dime a dozen,” as they say.

Here are also two terms for editors that will be useful later.

• Developmental Editor: The one who evaluates the story structure, pace, language, etc. against conventions accepted and expected by readers. The developmental editor might say something like, “This story does/doesn’t read like a thriller, so you need to change what you’re calling it and write for that audience or change the story to fit the genre [fiction or “category” for nonfiction].” They then may also advise on how to properly classify the story and/or change it.
• Copyeditor: The one who evaluates the words, sentences, and paragraphs for clarity, feel, etc. and checks its mechanics and grammar against conventions. Note: There are several distinct roles within this bucket and the editors out there are crying fowl (couldn’t help myself). But for this discussion, it’s one bucket.

In traditional publishing, the author performs neither of these roles. In indie publishing, the author might perform either or both roles—often at their own peril—usually leveraging professional writing and editing tools.

Back to my identity decision. I am the author and writer of the stories attributed to my pen names. With the expansion of AI tools for creative writing, being identified as the author is increasingly important. I also self-edit most of my stories, but also hire or collaborate with other editors. My alpha and beta readers are indispensable. (If you read this far, maybe you’d like to join the team).

AI and Creative Writing

As the promises and problems of artificial intelligence have begun to permeate most of personal and corporate life, you might wonder how that technology has affected creative writing. The business and process of writing stories is not uniquely spared its effects. And as with most of what you read about AI, its emergence in the industry has accelerated in recent months, but it has not been as sudden as it may seem.

Uses of AI have been increasing for several (really many) years. It is the proverbial snowball, gaining weight and speed at an increasing rate. What has occurred suddenly are the awareness and availability to the nontechnical public and the rush of companies to extend AI uses in creative writing. Now, AI is the 800 pound snowman in the room (as it were).

In creative writing, AI has expanded along a spectrum of writing and editing tools that aid in the presentation and creation of stories. Herein lies the distinction in my pledge, “ideation, creation, or authoring.” Here are a few categories (levels) based on how those tools assist the writing process. The categories are in order of increasing complexity and effect, which also roughly mirrors the order of their emergence. Tools that:

1. Aid with proper mechanics (e.g., using commas and other punctuation correctly) and fixing typos (e.g., the wrong “their/there/they’re, don’t cry”). Those squiggly lines under words in your word processor.
2. Assess and recommend proper grammar based on correct spelling and accepted grammar conventions (e.g., incomplete or run-on sentences, redundancies, and hard to read sentences). A step up from most of the word processor functions to something like Grammerly. (Which I mention because it is the most known, but I don’t use it. I prefer ProWritingAid).
3. Assess and recommend a story structure based on conventions established in known works in the genre (fiction) or category (nonfiction). Unless you are a writer, you probably aren’t familiar with these tools.
4. Suggest predictive or replacement text (finish sentences based on statistics and previous text, suggest rewording). Like in your phone message app.
5. Provide original text (given a sample or a topic and parameters) that the author cleans up and possibly extends. Like ChatGPT.

Note: I use the words “aid,” “recommend,” and “suggest” because the human editor needs to know whether the recommendation or suggestion is good. None of these tools are flawless.

There are many other types of tools (e.g., ones that convert and layout text for publishing), but let’s stick to the major categories above that affect the words written. AI systems can also be used as research tools to collect basic information (e.g., instead of searching Wikipedia). That is not the function described here.

The Tool/Author – AI/Person Spectrum

The types of tools and the degree the person relies on them affects the story/content and the proper attribution of the creative roles. The extent that any tool uses “true AI” or “brute force” that looks like AI, is unknowable and unimportant. From here on, we’ll assume that any tool has AI under the covers.

At level 1, the tool aids with proper formatting. The changes may affect a word here and there, but the ideas, words, and story are still the author’s. Essentially, the author has hired a very limited AI copyeditor. Here are the creative roles and the responsible party for each.

• Ideator: Person
• Author: Person
• Writer: Person
• Developmental Editor: Person
• Copyeditor: Person and AI

At level 2, the author has written the story. The tool aids with proper/accepted presentation. There are really several levels within this category, but for this discussion, I’ll throw spelling, thesaurus, and grammar into this bucket. Almost all grammar checkers now also provide suggested replacement text (beyond synonyms and antonyms, as in a thesaurus), which I will throw into the next bucket. So, the tool in this category reports something like: “Hey, this is a run-on sentence. Separate the ideas into two sentences separated by a period. Fix it.” The changes affect words here and there, but the words and ideas are still the author’s. Essentially, the author is using an electronic thesaurus and has hired an AI copyeditor.

• Ideator: Person
• Author: Person
• Writer: Person
• Developmental Editor: Person
• Copyeditor: AI and Person

Level 3 is probably a new concept for many readers and some authors. The tool evaluates some or all of the story’s structure, pace, language, etc. against conventions accepted and expected by readers of that genre or category. Essentially, the author has hired an AI developmental editor.

• Ideator: Person
• Author: Person
• Writer: Person
• Developmental Editor: AI
• Copyeditor: AI and Person

At level 4, the AI is now providing words for the author to use. The writing role is shared along a spectrum, depending on how much the person relies on the AI for original content. Essentially, the author has hired an AI collaborating writer and editor.

• Ideator: Person
• Author: Person and AI
• Writer: Person (Primary) and AI
• Developmental Editor: AI
• Copyeditor: AI and Person

At level 5, the AI is now providing the words for the person to edit. The author role is relinquished to the AI and the writing role is shared along a spectrum, depending on how much the person relies on the AI. The AI is primary, as explained in “The First Laws” section later.

• Ideator: Person
• Author: AI
• Writer: AI (primary) and Person
• Developmental Editor: Person and AI
• Copyeditor: AI and Person (possibly, but not necessarily)

AI or Person as Primary Creator

As noted earlier, if the AI is used as a tool to collect research data, it is functioning like a smart Wikipedia. Though I have my reservations about relying primarily on research through this source (as I would for relying primarily on Wikipedia), that is not the issue taken here.

So, you may think it is unfair of me to describe the AI as the author and primary writer just because it provided the original text. Applying my experience in IP contracts and finance, creative writing, and game design, let’s consider three related “first laws” from these different fields.

The First Laws of Contracts, Creative Writing, and Creative Effort

(OK, so maybe these are better described as adages, but you get the idea).

First Law of Contracts: The party who drafts the contract has already won the negotiation.

First Law of Creative Writing: You must kill your darlings. (Often quoted because this is hard!)

First Law of Effort: Expended effort demands completion. (AKA, the sunk cost fallacy).

These three generally accepted “laws” describe a common theme. Once the words are on the paper (or in the electronic document), they are incredibly difficult to change. Changes from that point are editing, not originating, and are negotiated against the weight of the product already completed. Changes must prove their worth, while existing language is accepted as valid/best unless proven otherwise. Scrapping something and starting fresh (or abandoning the effort) is akin to heresy.

What’s more, “authors” are often poor “editors,” especially of their own work, but also of others’. So, if they are a good author, they are trading a strength for a weakness (or at least a lesser skill).

Inspiration vs Dictation

My readers might note that I often describe the specific inspiration for my stories. E.G., Buffalo Chasers was inspired in part by Hemmingway’s The Sun Also Rises. Isn’t that the same thing as asking an AI system to generate a basic story for me that I then “craft” into a finished story?

Not at all. Inspiration might mean any number of many things, e.g., the approach to imagery, the use of a specific metaphor or image, the setting, the time period, the type of conflict, etc. It is not starting with a text or manuscript and modifying it to meet my goals.

OK, so that’s the problem with starting with AI-generated main text. But is something as simple as auto-completion a problem? For most writers on a first draft, probably not. Everyone has a unique process. I often insert throwaway words to “write past” a section and come back to rewrite later. But I still don’t like auto-completion for my creative writing.

It’s like having a conversation with “that guy.” You know, the one who always completes your words and sentences. You are forever trying to tell your story and getting sidetracked by someone else’s—even accepting the inserted words only to say, “yeah, like that, but not really.”  You are continually competing with the other person’s (or AI’s) perception of what you were going to say.

You certainly have sent a phone text to someone only to have them reply with question marks. Your next text starts, “Damn autoreplace… I meant…” Anecdotally, replacement text has replaced “reply all” as the most common communication snafu. (Though probably not as damning).

No matter how good replacement text is, it is never what I want to say. The AI selects replacement text because it is the most common thing to say next. Remember, I take every word seriously. I choose each to redirect, misdirect, or because of how they sound. Replacement text is fighting for control of my unique narrative by adding mundane words. It’s hard enough to write, to author. I don’t need the frustration of making it harder.

The AI Tools I Use and Won’t Use

Since the tools will change, and AI implementations morph into new constructs, the easiest way to describe what I use and won’t use is at a conceptual level. I use AI tools that help me be efficient as an editor and publisher. I don’t use AI tools that compete with my ideation, authoring, or writing process.

AI Tools I Use

• Level 1: Simple editing (Word, ProWritingAid).
• Level 2: Copyediting and grammar (ProWritingAid).
• Level 3: Developmental Editing. I haven’t used but might. But to no more degree than I would use the advice of a human who I would hire for the role.
• Read-aloud: I use this feature in my editing process to help find issues my mind will read as intended rather than as mistakenly or poorly written.
• Visual Thesaurus: A graphical thesaurus that is quick to navigate.

AI Tools I Won’t Use

• Level 4: I have predictive text, auto-replace, etc. disabled in all its forms. Where disabling isn’t an option, I just ignore the suggestions. (This is easy enough since they are so absurdly bad).
• Level 5: I strive to be an author (and am a pro editor for humans). I have no desire to be a de facto editor for an AI.
• AI for research. I will continue to use primary resources and not trust an AI’s “interpretation.” I often use Wikidedia as a launch point to discovery primary sources.

Level 6: The Future

The natural extension of the growth of AI in storytelling is to eliminate the person-creator completely. The reader asks the AI for a story based on their own idea.

• Ideator: Reader
• Author: AI
• Writer: AI
• Developmental Editor: AI
• Copyeditor: AI

Imagine…

John: “Seri/Alexa, tell me a story about a girl raised by wolves who later becomes a nuclear physicist on an intergalactic colony ship.”

Seri/Alexa: “Sure John, Wolfie has a fascinating story. She was born…”

Seri/Alexa will also ask for further input from the reader as the story develops. “Where was the colony ship originally headed, John?”

That isn’t to say this is a bleak future. For readers/listeners who might enjoy these stories, it could be a satisfying end. They hear an ad hoc story based on their idea. For the people making the moneygrab in the meantime (described in the article: AI Assisted Writing: Who is the Villain in this Story?), it is a just end.

For authors like me and readers like mine, the eventual emergence of this technology probably doesn’t make a difference. There are already over a million new books published on Amazon each year. There is no way to compete with the volume created by other humans, let alone AI.

AI Assisted Writing: Is there a Villain in this Story?

Until this point in my narrative, there have been no villains. “Content creators” are welcome to do whatever their desires direct, their skills and budget afford them, and their readers want. And they are welcome to make a “spacebuck” doing it. I give away a lot of stories, but ultimately, I rely on my work as author, writer, editor, and narrator to pay some of my bills.

But there are villains out there who are looking for a quick buck.

I have a separate article/rant about these villains titled “AI Assisted Writing: Who is the Villain in this Story?”