How acceptable is AI Book covers?

[Arkus86]

Some folks avoid books with AI covers. But I think having at least some cover, even if it's AI, will still attract more readers than having no cover.

 

[Rezcore]

Spoiler: LOL

This is AI. Mostly because no matter how deep I searched, I couldn't find an artist that did this style. It's all Otaku-waku-baku anime rips that don't suit my taste.

 

[CountVanBadger]

This is AI. Mostly because no matter how deep I searched, I couldn't find an artist that did this style. It's all Otaku-waku-baku anime rips that don't suit my taste.

Asiherial Mysipncs by AAtnacnl Speilvtejv is my favorite book!

 

[Amateur_Artist2008]

I think seeing an AI cover will definitely make some people be skeptical about whether or not the story is good, but for me, not really.

It's more of the title and the synopsis that I look at to see if it's something I would read, the cover just makes it stand out more. There is a fic that I'm reading that uses an AI cover, but the story is actually interesting and entertaining enough that I want to keep reading it, regardless of it's cover.

I'm not fully for AI covers, and although I'm not currently using one, I'm not entirely against having AI make a cover for me. But I think I would just use that cover as a bit of a reference rather than the actual thing. I'm not the best at drawing, but I would rather have a mediocre cover drawn by me than a gourgeous cover made by AI.

 

[Rezcore]

Asiherial Mysipncs by AAtnacnl Speilvtejv is my favorite book!

I'm not sure what that is

I'm not sure what that is

Nevermind

 

[Ararara]

I've seen probably 200 covers at this point that look exactly like this:

Reincarnated in a VRMMO I’ll be the strongest

This novel is available non-exclusively on platforms such as Meganovel and Hopwriter, as well as apps like Joyread and Tapon. You can check it out there if you like. It currently has 90 chapters. One day, I woke up to find myself in an unfamiliar place. To my surprise, I realized...

www.scribblehub.com

The Witch and the God Beyond Reach

The girl survived the altar. That was the first miracle. Isvey should have died in a chapel of blood and prayer. Sold to a cult, offered to a dead god, and abandoned by everyone who should have saved her, she gave the last thing she had left: a wish for...

www.scribblehub.com

The Disgraced Noble’s Harem Chronicles: My Overpowered Husband Skills Save a Poor Territory

[Contains mildly suggestive content / The harem is literally part of the job] This story aims to be one where “more girls join, the town expands, and entire nations get involved.” Yuri, an exiled noble, is married into the household of a baroness burdened with a debt-ridden territory. His new...

www.scribblehub.com

https://www.scribblehub.com/series/1768900/the-legendary-method-actor/

Many many AI-cover stories get a lot of views. Even those that u can tell at a glance is AI, it's not a big deal at all to readers I think.

Though it's always far nicer to see a real cover. Or at least having it edited better to look more normal. This sets the expectations a bit lower from the getgo, but they still work just fine for most stories!

 

[VanVeleca]

Not acceptable

 

[AmiRose]

As a reader myself, I personally don't care as long as it looks good and isn't just some random gen-crap. At least try ta make teh cover look good, or have your title and name on it.
Especially for indie authors here who are people that (like me) lack a certain thing called money to hire artsy people.
Especially if they are doin everything else themselves.

 

[Navillus]

I think an Ai cover is best suited for being temporary rather than being a permanent cover, but honestly just making the cover just text with a simple color or environment background in photoshop will make the story far more appealing at first glance-nyah.

 

[rileykifer]

I don't care if someone used AI for a free cover, but I think it's highly hypocritical of writers to use AI covers, and then turn around and whine about people using AI to write. (Yes, including whining about people who use AI to write an entire story then post it online.) It's unfair to artists and designers, who also have to deal with the struggles of competing with AI. They are getting thrown under the bus there.

Also, I am far more likely to click on a book with a poorly designed cover than something obviously make with AI. All that aside, I don't expect anyone to shell out money for something they're doing for free. Basically, I frown upon using AI but I also understand why writers are using it for covers, and might still read a story with an AI cover if everything else about it is good. It's more of a minor gripe.

Honestly, I wish writing websites were more like ao3 where stories don't have covers at all. It'll put all of us at an even playing field.

 

[Ral_062]

Honestly, in the general use of AI, I'm pretty neutral. I don't think it's either bad or good.

All i really care about is the product that came out of that prompt has to serve a purpose, rather than just a low effort work. For AI covers i don't really think that's a bad thing as i myself is using one.

Though i'm really broke to afford an artist. It is really only to atract people though

 

[CountVanBadger]

but I think it's highly hypocritical of writers to use AI covers, and then turn around and whine about people using AI to write. (Yes, including whining about people who use AI to write an entire story then post it online.)

The difference is that this is a book writing website, not an art website. Banning AI art on a something like Deviantart would make sense since seeing the art other people have made is the whole reason people go to that website. An AI cover is just something an author uses grab people's attention so that they'll click on your book and read it. If you're just going to make a machine write the entire story for you, then it doesn't belong on here any more than AI art does on Deviantart.

 

[rileykifer]

The difference is that this is a book writing website, not an art website. Banning AI art on a something like Deviantart would make sense since seeing the art other people have made is the whole reason people go to that website. An AI cover is just something an author uses grab people's attention so that they'll click on your book and read it. If you're just going to make a machine write the entire story for you, then it doesn't belong on here any more than AI art does on Deviantart.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not calling for banning AI anything anywhere. I'm strictly talking about people who complain about people using AI to write turn around and use AI for art. Even if it's just a basic cover, it still comes off as hypocritical to me. The general reasons they usually cite for AI writing being wrong (trained off writers without consent, takes away jobs from writers, drowns out people who put in actual effort, etc) don't change when it's art or even a cover. (Some people work hard to make a legit cover but their story might get overlooked in favor of one with an AI cover.) While I understand why people would use it to make a cover for a free book, it still contradicts with some of the reasons people say they're against using it for writing. That reasoning shouldn't go away just because it's suddenly convenient to use it for a cover.

 

[AliceMoonvale]

I think you misunderstood. I'm not calling for banning AI anything anywhere. I'm strictly talking about people who complain about people using AI to write turn around and use AI for art. Even if it's just a basic cover, it still comes off as hypocritical to me. The general reasons they usually cite for AI writing being wrong (trained off writers without consent, takes away jobs from writers, drowns out people who put in actual effort, etc) don't change when it's art or even a cover. (Some people work hard to make a legit cover but their story might get overlooked in favor of one with an AI cover.) While I understand why people would use it to make a cover for a free book, it still contradicts with some of the reasons people say they're against using it for writing. That reasoning shouldn't go away just because it's suddenly convenient to use it for a cover.

I think you misunderstand.

We're allowed to be hypocriticial and complain for a good reason. So yeah, I'll be that hypocrite myself because Ai art usage matters in context.

People like me are against low-effort spam that replaces the actual creative writing process. It floods sites like this with content that pushes real creators out. A simple AI cover used because someone can't draw or afford an artist doesn't have the same impact as fully AI-generated novels designed to churn out content like a machine, and even worse when they try to monetize it. For example, with illegal machine translated ones where novels are stolen and translated then monetized. Which, surprise surprise, resulted in them being purged and banned.

You can disagree on where the line should be, but essentially saying "all AI use is equally bad in every context" just isn't a convincing argument to make and I see it all the time. It comes across as partially tone-deaf, which is fine. We all struggle to develop our galaxy brains.

AI placeholder cover that isn't just an animu girl with big knockers? Pog.
AI deepfake cornhub? Not pog.
AI spellcheck/editor assistance? Pog.
AI generating a lazy, soulless story factory that clogs up the shower drain of web novel sites? Not pog.

 

[Bimbanana]

I think you misunderstand.

We're allowed to be hypocriticial and complain for a good reason. So yeah, I'll be that hypocrite myself because Ai art usage matters in context.

People like me are against low-effort spam that replaces the actual creative writing process. It floods sites like this with content that pushes real creators out. A simple AI cover used because someone can't draw or afford an artist doesn't have the same impact as fully AI-generated novels designed to churn out content like a machine, and even worse when they try to monetize it. For example, with illegal machine translated ones where novels are stolen and translated then monetized. Which, surprise surprise, resulted in them being purged and banned.

You can disagree on where the line should be, but essentially saying "all AI use is equally bad in every context" just isn't a convincing argument to make and I see it all the time. It comes across as partially tone-deaf, which is fine. We all struggle to develop our galaxy brains.

AI placeholder cover that isn't just an animu girl with big knockers? Pog.
AI deepfake cornhub? Not pog.
AI spellcheck/editor assistance? Pog.
AI generating a lazy, soulless story factory that clogs up the shower drain of web novel sites? Not pog.

...w-what is pog?

 

[AliceMoonvale]

...w-what is pog?

It means you're too young for me and should learn to use google.

 

[Bimbanana]

It means you're too young for me and should learn to use google.

I am young


.....too young for you for what exactly?

 

[AliceMoonvale]

I am young


.....too young for you for what exactly?

To ever fully be able to understand or associate with me. I don't like children who don't even know what pog means, shows they weren't around during early twitch.tv days. And despite that, pog is still common there.

 

[Bimbanana]

To ever fully be able to understand or associate with me. I don't like children who don't even know what pog means, shows they weren't around during early twitch.tv days. And despite that, pog is still common there.

*googling early twitch.tv days*

 

[rileykifer]

I think you misunderstand.

We're allowed to be hypocriticial and complain for a good reason. So yeah, I'll be that hypocrite myself because Ai art usage matters in context.

People like me are against low-effort spam that replaces the actual creative writing process. It floods sites like this with content that pushes real creators out. A simple AI cover used because someone can't draw or afford an artist doesn't have the same impact as fully AI-generated novels designed to churn out content like a machine, and even worse when they try to monetize it. For example, with illegal machine translated ones where novels are stolen and translated then monetized. Which, surprise surprise, resulted in them being purged and banned.

You can disagree on where the line should be, but essentially saying "all AI use is equally bad in every context" just isn't a convincing argument to make and I see it all the time. It comes across as partially tone-deaf, which is fine. We all struggle to develop our galaxy brains.

AI placeholder cover that isn't just an animu girl with big knockers? Pog.
AI deepfake cornhub? Not pog.
AI spellcheck/editor assistance? Pog.
AI generating a lazy, soulless story factory that clogs up the shower drain of web novel sites? Not pog.

I didn't say people weren't allowed to be hypocritical, and nowhere in any of my posts did I ever say people shouldn't be allowed to use AI covers. I've said several times that I understand why people do it. I'm also not saying there's no nuance. Obviously posting a free story with an AI cover isn't as bad as your example. I just think it's hypocritical, depending on the person's reasons for being against writing AI stories.

For example, someone using AI covers complaining about how people shouldn't use AI to write stories because AI was trained off of people's writing are hypocrites, because AI was also trained off of people's art and design work. So under that reasoning, they're throwing artists and designers under the bus because it's more convenient for them to use AI than to stick with their morals. It wouldn't be that hard for them to find a stock image and throw some text on it. But they use AI for making a cover anyway, but still get mad that "AI is training off of stories without the writer's consent." If they're mad about that, then they should also be mad about it doing the same to artists and designers. And even if they are also mad about it doing the same to artists, they're showing they don't care as much as they let on because they're still using it. If they truly cared about AI training off of creators, they wouldn't use it for creating anything. So, they're a hypocrite if they do. That's all I'm saying.

Personally, I think having a good cover being crucial to gaining readers sucks, which is why I personally think sites like this should just not have covers, like on ao3. That way readers can judge off our actual writing, and we won't be wasting our time arguing over the ethics of using AI for a free book.