Question for authors using AI-assisted workflows

[JosMade]

Question for serial fiction authors:

For writers who use AI only as part of the workflow, such as outlining, editing, translation help, or cover ideation, what kind of disclosure would feel fair to readers?

I am not talking about mostly AI-written stories. I am asking about human-led stories where AI is one tool in the process.

Would you prefer:

1. one broad "AI-assisted" label,
2. detailed process labels,
3. a short author note,
4. no label unless AI wrote substantial prose?

Also, would you ever mirror a 1-3 chapter pilot on a separate feedback shelf if:

- rights remain with the author,
- publishing is non-exclusive,
- the author can request removal,
- AI usage is disclosed clearly,
- the pilot links back to the author's main page?

I am trying to understand the trust barriers before asking writers to post anywhere outside their main platform. Blunt objections are welcome.

 

[Dec]

Full disclosure, so readers know what to avoid.

Even without it, readers will know. Disclosing it makes them waste less time deciding if they want to look at it or not.

 

[NapLovingImmortal]

Look, as long as I don’t notice an AI tone, I don’t give a fuck. And up to this point, I don’t think you need to disclose it. Why would you? I don’t think anyone has ever told their viewers they used Google or Grammarly.

 

[greyblob]

one label so I know to avoid it

 

[Lysander_Works]

Full disclosure. If AI was used, explain how and why it was used. Even something like the difference between spelling/grammar and sentence structure will say a reader's opinion. But, if it's a surprise to us, (those of us who) don't want AI, most will click off based on that alone.

 

[ScribeOfAyn]

I think one "AI assisted content" label should be fine. Those who hate AI will stay away and will not feel betrayed later. And the rest of them don't care as long as your story is interesting.
Everytime i see the AI debate amongst artists i am reminded of a story Steve Jobs once told. He talked of an experiment conducted to measure locomotion efficiency of different animals/species. Condor was seen to be the most efficient and humans were a third of the way down the list. But then one of the scientists involved in the experiment gave a human a bicycle and tested again. He blew away the condor and became the most efficient by a long margin. So Jobs concluded that humans are actually tool builders. He was talking about computers of course and said "Computers are like a bicycle for the mind." So maybe AI is just another tool... should use it ethically... but it's still just a tool.

 

[JessicaDrew]

I may be wrong but I think there’s probably two main reasons why people dislike AI use in creative writing.

1) People don’t want to read AI slop, they want to know this has come from someone with a soul and an artistic intent.

2). Moral objection - The environment and social implications of supporting AI use (water consumption, replacing jobs etc.)

And people might care about one or both of those. But people who only care about the first one, won’t care if you’ve used AI to fix your grammar, or to run ideas by, or ask if your characters track from one chapter to the next.

So in that respect, a distinction is useful.