Generative AI and large language models (LLMs) have developed rapidly in the last few years, and now represent one of the most controversial topics in the publishing world. We regularly survey our partners to understand how they’re using different platforms and technology and to share those insights with our audience, and we recently did the same for AI. We heard from over 1,200 authors who told us how they’re currently thinking about AI in relation to their work.
Overall, opinions among authors are deeply divided — many consider any use of generative AI unethical and irresponsible, while others find it a helpful tool to enhance their writing and business processes. Some authors remain conflicted, and are still negotiating their own feelings about the utility and morality of this technology.
Our survey respondents shared thousands of comments exploring these perspectives and more. To try to capture the nuance and breadth of authors’ stances and emotions on this topic, we’ve included a selection of quotes throughout this post in addition to the survey data. We would like to thank every author who contributed to this survey, and especially those who shared detailed comments. We deeply appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts.
Here are the biggest takeaways from the survey:
Authors are split nearly evenly on AI use
Among survey respondents, about 45% are currently using generative AI to assist with their work while 48% are not and do not plan to in the future. Another 7% of respondents are not currently using AI but might use it in the future.
Of the authors who are currently using generative AI, 30% use it occasionally and 60% are using it frequently.
For authors who don’t use AI, ethical concerns are the primary reason
Of the authors who do not currently use generative AI, 84% say they aren’t using the technology because they think it’s unethical. The other top reasons are because they enjoy doing the work themselves and they don’t think AI does a good job with the tasks they would give it.
In elaborating on their ethical opposition to AI, by far the most frequently cited concern among authors was that many generative AI tools were trained on copyrighted material with no compensation for the original creators. Some authors also shared other objections, including mistrust of the companies developing AI tools and the environmental impacts of its use.
AI is theft. Period. There are no ethical uses of a program built on stolen IP.
There’s no model of generative AI on the market right now that was compiled in an ethical way, and I don’t want it to be part of my book, from research to drafting to marketing.
Many of my books have been stolen to train AI tools, without my permission, and I believe that generative AI as it currently exists is unethical and destructive.
If I could train or license an LLM that I was sure was trained on either my own writing or an ethically sourced training set (i.e. not stolen), I would consider it — as long as it didn’t also ingest my stuff to a cloud service. But without that assurance, it’s wildly unethical, not to mention resource-extractive.
The few times I’d tried AI, it created more work than if I did it myself; I ended up rewriting extensively. The most important reason to me, though, is environmental — it uses so much water. I can see using AI to create tools that benefit all of humanity, such as scientific research or medical breakthroughs. But to edit a marketing blurb? Nope.
Authors using generative AI are applying it to a wide range of use cases
Of the authors who are using generative AI, 81% use it to conduct research. The other top uses are creating marketing materials and outlining or plotting. The comments from authors using AI often described a variety of applications across their creative and business processes.
Here are some of the ways authors describe their AI use:
I have integrated AI in all levels of my business, for helping keep track of details in a long running series, to drafting out ideas to see if they’re marketable before rewriting, to helping with my marketing process.
I use it for generating plot and plot twist ideas; refining word choice; making grammar corrections; drafting passages and scene descriptions; rewriting passages (“originally X was happening, but now I’ve changed the story so Y is happening — please rewrite this paragraph to reflect this change”); generating character names and drafting character profiles; getting writing feedback and advice. But none of this is just blind “generate me some text so I can use it for my novel” — it’s all reviewed/accepted/rejected to stay within my voice and vision. In the past, I might find myself stuck for days trying to resolve problems — now, I have a writing partner who always has advice and suggestions.
Anything I need new ideas for that are on the business side of writing: how to adjust ads, how to reach a different market, investigate common tropes in a new genre or in the currently top-selling books, writing blurbs, writing marketing hooks, etc. All around, it can be used as a sounding board and generate ideas. There is no more writer’s block or I don’t know how to do “X” with AI.
I use it for almost every part of the process. Though I do the majority of work myself, AI is really great at helping me to organize my thoughts, prompt new ideas, and streamline my work. AI is the ultimate writing buddy and assistant.
Some authors remain conflicted about AI use
Some authors are still figuring out where they draw the line on using generative AI, or believe that certain applications are more acceptable than others.
It’s unethical to write an entire book. But I would be interested in using it to brainstorm copy for ads and blurbs.
My feelings are conflicted. I can see the value in using these agents, but I know it means less jobs for all artists. I’ve used various AI in the past and found it very helpful, but I hesitate because I don’t like what it means for our future. But is it inevitable?
I think using AI for creating is unethical. But if you’re using it to read your own work so you can edit it, I think that’s ok.
I’m still thinking about the line between AI output and creativity. Using AI is not substantially different than asking someone (editor, friend, writing partner) for help and ideas. It lets me focus on the exciting parts of writing and avoid a lot of the drudgery. It’s a great accelerator (I have two books in flight — I can probably get them both out in the time it previously took to write one). But is there a line where the effort is no longer a creative endeavor, more machine than heart?
Others don’t believe it adds value to their work
We also heard from authors who expressed that generative AI doesn’t meaningfully improve their work or that they enjoy the craft of the writing too much to incorporate it as a tool.
Part of the joy of writing novels is doing it myself. Where’s the fun getting AI to do it?
AI has enough glitches that when it gets things wrong (which it inevitably does) it only creates more work for me.
I have my own style, and I feel AI is too bland for what I want to achieve.
I have been writing all of my life. I love the process and I love that every book is a new challenge full of learning opportunities. Even if AI was ethical, not harmful to the environment, and not trying to destroy people’s livelihoods, I would not use it. I would not rob myself of the joy and the learning opportunities that come with writing and the creative process.
Many authors who use AI find it aids their creativity and efficiency
Authors who have found value in using generative AI often said it helps them brainstorm ideas, spark inspiration, or improve their productivity.
My creative processes have exploded with new ideas and storylines. The AI tools have helped me harness and bring to fruition what I see in my head but need a little help bringing fully to life.
It’s like having a brainstorming partner and a sounding board for all my ideas. The advice I get back isn’t always good, but it often sparks an idea that gets me past moments of writer’s block (or marketing block or publishing block or any other time my brain can’t figure out what to do). Its suggestions are rarely usable on their own but will lead me in a different direction I hadn’t considered before.
I used to spend hours doing research and creating names (I use roots of old languages). Now I can get it done in a few minutes.
I see it like an assistant or even a ghostwriter at times… I come up with the idea and play with AI to make it better. Then AI purges a first draft and I take over as the author from there. I’ve always believed writing is what happens once you have a draft. You just get to the draft stage faster.
AI is an excellent collaborator. We talk about plot, toy with character profiles, work through the structural templates I’ve developed for my own work, read new passages for tonal consistency, and more. I would never hand over the writing of the work — but having AI as a collaborator greatly increases my productivity.
Lots of authors outsource marketing and admin tasks to AI
Another common use for AI is assisting with marketing, and many authors appreciate being able to outsource tasks they don’t enjoy doing themselves.
It’s very helpful for marketing copy, especially if there is a word count. For example, I have a long blurb I wrote myself but I might use AI to generate 150, 250 or 300–word blurbs as requested by various platforms.
I mostly use it to generate ad copy, taglines, and short elevator pitches. AI is good at keeping things short & snappy; authors often are not.
I use generative AI mostly for creating eye-catching images for marketing on social media.
Advertising analysis. Uploading CSVs of different ads and spend, analyzing metrics, finding out which platforms and strategies work best.
Authors cited dozens of additional use cases for AI
Of the hundreds of authors using AI, there are almost as many different ways they were using the technology based on their own needs, preferences, and abilities.
I have AI generate character images. I used to scour the internet looking for inspiration images for characters. Now AI does it in a fraction of the time.
I use AI to condense and analyze large amounts of information, such as compiling a series bible or character list.
Organization and scheduling. Drafting content for newsletters.
Lots of social media work and complicated tasks that I need help with like coding for my website or automated systems.
AI book trailers.
I use it as an editor who knows my world and can assist me in research, grammar edits and sometimes rephrasing.
ChatGPT is the most popular platform among authors using AI
OpenAI’s ChatGPT is the most popular platform by a significant margin, with 85% of authors who use AI using it, followed by Anthropic’s Claude (54%) and the editing software ProWritingAid (50%).
Most authors using AI do not disclose their AI use to readers
74% of the authors who use generative AI do not disclose their AI use to readers. Of the 26% who do disclose it, most are doing so via their email newsletter, social media, website, or blog.
I don’t disclose the AI to my readers, because I don’t use it to write. I use it to brainstorm social media posts, to help me with research, or schedules.
I disclose use in certain situations. E.g. blog post images without much human intervention, using digital narration for an audiobook.
I don’t disclose how the sausage is made because I don’t think it’s helpful for readers to know which craft books I’ve read, whether I use a hard copy of the Chicago Manual of Style or a grammar-checking app, whether I use a writers’ critique group or AI to bounce story ideas off of, or which editors and proofreaders I use. Would readers really want to know all of that? I think they just want a good story to read.
Honestly it’s no one’s business if I use AI. The stories are all me. I’m the director. I’m the storyteller. These language models don’t give great output if you don’t already know your craft. Just like many authors don’t disclose a ghostwriter.
A common fear among both authors who use AI and those who avoid it is the devaluing of art and artists
Many authors, regardless of their own AI use, expressed concerns that the technology will devalue books and make it harder for writers, artists, narrators, translators, and other creatives to earn a living from their work.
I understand the use of AI as a ‘tool,’ but fear it will replace human art and effort.
I don’t want to make myself obsolete, nor any other writer, nor all the wonderful editors, cover designers, audiobook narrators, etc. Let’s pay human beings for the art we lovingly create.
I’m in a Facebook group of authors using AI to create books monthly, weekly, and daily. I believe it will alienate a readership that already has a hard enough time sorting through the glut of available reading options.
AI is eventually going to put writers, graphic artists, and narrators out of business. I do not want to assist the AI developers in doing this.
Others see failing to adapt as the bigger risk
That same fear of how generative AI might transform the industry has motivated some authors to use it rather than avoid it.
I believe it’s important to embrace and understand new technology, but I am very fearful of the medium- and long-term impact of AI on creators.
AI is here to stay. Times are changing and we as authors need to adapt to stay ahead of the game. As long as we create quality products that readers love, that’s what matters.
AI is inevitable. I would like to be a purist and not use AI for images and editing if I could afford the human-based alternatives, but I don’t make enough money yet to be able to do that. I hope that I eventually will.
The creative landscape is shifting and AI is becoming a major force in our reality as creators. Let’s help each other learn, adapt, mourn where needed, and embrace change as empowered individuals and communities. It’s time to stop tearing each other down for opinions and usage about AI. We need more deep curiosity and to question the premise that only some people deserve to be “good” or “real” artists or only the “good” and “real” artists should experience abundance. That is no longer true and we are being invited to step into a new paradigm. It’s up to us to design it.
Authors agree that it takes skill and practice to write good books
A common sentiment among respondents is that the quality of a book is ultimately up to the author. While some authors see that as a reason to reject AI altogether, others see it as reassurance that the technology will never replace authors — their vision and creativity will always be essential in crafting books people want to read.
I think it’s important to see that AI can be a tool in the creative process, but it can’t be the creative. AI on its own can’t write books worth the paper they’re printed on, but a good writer can level up and create even better stories with AI.
I just want to say that I’m not at all threatened by AI. I believe that my readers are interested in reading the human experience and that is what I give them. AI will never be able to connect with readers the way I do.
AI makes the same mistakes that beginning writers do. The AI is an assistant. The author is still in charge. Prompting is a skill. However, you have to have the writing skills and know good writing from bad, genre expectations, and why something will work or not work.
I treat it like a tool. It allows me to free up time to do the thing I love the most, which is the writing. By using it for a lot of admin tasks, I save myself hours that then get put back into my time writing my books and I’m grateful for that. I think it’s a lot harder to use than people think. Prompting is an art form in itself to get the AI to give you something decent. The more I play with AI, the less fearful I am that it will take my job away.
Looking ahead
Generative AI technology and the policies that govern its use will continue to evolve. We believe it’s important to follow any developments like this that could have a significant impact on our industry, even — or perhaps especially — if those developments elicit strong emotions or conflicting opinions.
As these survey results demonstrate, there’s a lot of variety in the ways authors are currently using generative AI, as well as genuine concerns about the impact of this technology on the future of publishing, media, art, and more. We hope the information and perspectives shared here provide useful context to guide your own decisions and help you navigate whatever changes the future brings.
Who took the survey?
1,229 authors replied to our anonymous survey.
The vast majority of respondents have self-published a book:
- 69% are self-published
- 6% are traditionally published
- 25% have both self-published and traditionally published books
The majority of respondents published their first book before 2020:
- 16% published their first book before 2010
- 56% published their first book between 2010 and 2020
- 24% published their first book between 2020 and 2023
- 4% published their first book within the last year
Most of these authors write in popular fiction genres, with many writing in multiple genres:
- 59% write Romance or Rom-Com
- 56% write Fantasy, Science Fiction, or Horror
- 35% write Mysteries, Thrillers, or Crime Fiction
- 22% write Historical Fiction, Literary Fiction, or Women’s Fiction
- 16% write Nonfiction
- 15% write Teen, Middle Grade, or Children’s
- 7% write in other genres
The perspectives expressed in these survey comments do not necessarily represent the opinions or beliefs of BookBub, Chirp, or their employees.
