I need authors to understand that the money you "save" using AI for covers or audiobook narrators is lost by people boycotting your shit for directly undercutting artists in your own community.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I clearly recall that the moment those "AI" appeared, Harlequin Books made clear they won't use those for their covers.
Just think about it : a publisher of smut romances whom 2/3 of book covers could be summed up as "Hey dude, where's my shirt ?" said NO to "AI".
(can't find the source rn tho)
In the pre-AI times, this and all the suggestions below would've been laughed off as a surefire way to give your book look like amateur garbage. I'm not sure it's any better advice now.
Getting "really good" at art takes ages, and a campy aesthetic only works for a campy story.
I'm not saying it's right, but I don't see how we can convince the public at large to go back to the old days of "Keep making shit until eventually you get gold".
You've seen those psychedelic sci-fi/fantasy covers/posters from the last century. Some were not very good. And yet, you remember them: each had personality, something ai does not have, because, not a person.
It’s the vc/private equity issue writ large, too me—short term benefit without building the brand, the culture, the industry. Rapacious. I feel for the cash-strapped writer…but it’s empty calories.
It's uncomfortable.. so many e-books have gotten their covers replaced with highly simplified/low-quality ones over the past couple of years. Far enough from "art" that it's genuinely hard to tell whether they're AI. Like, the Imperial Radch books now have just sort of swirly lines?
Depending of your target public, that bcan happen.
But I don't believe the average citizen is so against that case of AI use enough to do it. But, like Sagan used to say, "I don't want to believe, I want to know". That's why I'm asking about reseraches
Oh, I wish. Because THERE ARE people doing more money with that shit than honest writers like myself, just because they can churn out "content" faster. And people just don't read/promote honest indie writers enough. I'm tired. Not that I'm going to use AI, but I don't know how to compete with that.
Even aside from boycotting gen AI to support human creatives, I’m immediately going to assume anything with an AI image on it is crap made by people who don’t care what they’re doing, that’s not worth checking out
Sadly, I’m less sure the public would boycott it on those terms.
But, as AI art is increasingly seen as low-quality ‘slop’, I think people will see those works as not worth paying for.
Anything that has ai in any part of its creation is dead to me Full stop. I support the artists, writers, creators its hokestly pisses me off the people acting like it's OK to use any of it cause it's ONLY "art" or "writing" or "voices" that's a person's being your stealing for yourself cripes sake
A local comics shop has been using AI generated ads lately and I politely explained how this is problematic, particularly in their line of work. Some people just don't get it.
The ironic part is, that I'm almost %100 sure that if they simply asked around, they'd have found a customer that's an amateur artist who would welcome the opportunity for cheap or free. 🤷
Yeah, my experience is that the local comic shop ALWAYS has a cadre of super dedicated loyal fans willing to do just about anything for it without recompense.
Same but ebay descriptions. Bro if you can't write a paragraph and you're happy with "With 4 wheels and an engine this car is ideal for your off-road adventures..." I'm not buying it.
If I see AI junk on a book cover, I am going to assume the contents may also have been done with AI, so I’m not going to read that book.
I once found several free books discarded on the street that all had obvious AI covers and blurbs, and I didn’t bother taking any of them, because why read AI?
I know it's a small thing but i immediately unfollow all creators who take AI sponsorships or use AI actively in their content. It’s so upsetting when it’s book people who want and need readers.
yup. if i spot AI garbage my interest just instantly evaporates. if there's a feature on whatever platform i'm on that lets me banish them from future suggestions/search results/etc. i use it
I get that feeling even on youtube. Seeing an AI background image for an audiobook is likely the least of all worries (they would have never hired me to do an illustration either way) but if the narrator is done with AI I am out. At least when I can notice it.
Like, I'm buying for the words, not the cover. But if the cover is AI then to me, as a buyer, that signals the words inside might also be AI. And then I would want to avoid it. This isn't a problem with other types of low-quality cover art like stock art. It's a specific thing.
Comments
Just think about it : a publisher of smut romances whom 2/3 of book covers could be summed up as "Hey dude, where's my shirt ?" said NO to "AI".
(can't find the source rn tho)
Or vapid
And the narrator got on their nerves
There are options!
I'm not saying it's right, but I don't see how we can convince the public at large to go back to the old days of "Keep making shit until eventually you get gold".
You've seen those psychedelic sci-fi/fantasy covers/posters from the last century. Some were not very good. And yet, you remember them: each had personality, something ai does not have, because, not a person.
Same with voice.
But I don't believe the average citizen is so against that case of AI use enough to do it. But, like Sagan used to say, "I don't want to believe, I want to know". That's why I'm asking about reseraches
But, as AI art is increasingly seen as low-quality ‘slop’, I think people will see those works as not worth paying for.
I once found several free books discarded on the street that all had obvious AI covers and blurbs, and I didn’t bother taking any of them, because why read AI?
Might as well just read the dictionary spat out randomly.
As well as the part of that group that ACTIVELY researches true crime for INSPIRATION.
hire artists.