Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 46 references

Precarity and Solidarity: Preliminary results on a study of queer and disabled fiction writers' experiences with generative AI

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A survey of 137 professional fiction writers finds queer and disabled authors markedly more pessimistic than others about generative AI, and argues that their backlash is a self-protective collective response to deepening precarity.

desk verdict A genuinely useful qualitative study of queer and disabled fiction writers, burdened by a comparative headline that its small, snowball-recruited sample and uncorrected tests do not yet support. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04575 v1 pith:KTGLVSFQ submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CY

C.E. Lamb , D.G. Brown , M.R. Grossman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords generativeAIqueerstudiesdisabilityfictionauthorspublishingindustryprecaritygroundedtheorycollectiveaction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a mixed-methods survey of 137 professional fiction writers, with qualitative analysis centered on the 54 who identify as both queer and disabled. Its central claim is that generative AI deepens an already precarious publishing industry, and that queer and disabled writers, who earn a lower median writing income despite similar experience, feel and expect its harms more acutely than other writers, although pessimism is the majority view in both groups. The paper argues that writers' opposition to genAI is not reflexive polarization but a self-protective collective strategy, grounded in two objections: the technology is useless for writing as intentional self-expression, and it is unethical because it trains on copyrighted work without consent or compensation. The study contributes first-hand accounts from a marginalized population of creative workers to the debate over genAI's industry effects.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a grounded-theory qualitative analysis built around three concepts the writers themselves use. Precarity is the central category: the industry's pre-existing instability, including low advances, shrinking publisher and magazine counts, flooding of self-published books, self-marketing burdens, and dependence on platforms that change their business models, against which every genAI effect is measured. Soul names what writers say AI cannot supply: conscious, intentional communication of the writer's own experience, which is why even useful AI output is rejected. Momentum is the one individual protective factor writers describe, the way past successes make future ones easier. The quantitative results are carried by Mann-Whitney U tests comparing Likert-scale responses between the queer disabled group and the control group, while the qualitative coding supplies the mechanism that explains the pessimism gap.

What would settle it

Conduct the same survey on a probability-based sample of professional fiction writers drawn outside AI-discussion-heavy social platforms, for example through a national writers' register, professional organizations' membership rolls, or in-person conventions, and compare the queer and disabled responses to the control group. If the significant pessimism gap on the four Mann-Whitney questions disappears, or if the free-text responses do not reliably organize around precarity, soul, and boundary-setting, the central claim as stated would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery, stated on its own terms, is that queer and disabled fiction writers are markedly more pessimistic than non-queer and non-disabled writers about the effects of generative AI on the fiction industry, and that this pessimism tracks measurable precarity. The 54 queer disabled writers in the sample had a median writing income of 695.50 US dollars versus 3000 US dollars for the 75-writer control group, with similar age and experience, and 72% rated genAI's effects as very negative, against 52% in the control group; Mann-Whitney U tests found significant differences on four questions, all about conditions for writers in general rather than the respondent's own career. Qualitatively, the free-text responses organized around precarity: genAI floods self-publishing and short-fiction markets with low-quality submissions, introduces AI-related contract clauses, threatens cover-art and manuscript-evaluation work, and forces writers into extra labor to avoid AI-infused software. Writers describe genAI as soulless, meaning incapable of the intentional, effortful communication they value, and as plagiarism because of unlicensed training data, and they respond with personal boundaries and public backlash that have already pressed some publishers to retract AI plans. The paper interprets this backlash as a conscious, self-protective strategy by a vulnerable population, not as identity-driven polarization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the writers recruited through the researchers' own social-media networks and writing communities represent queer and disabled professional fiction writers generally; if that snowball sample is systematically unrepresentative, for instance more enmeshed in online AI discourse than the wider population, then the pessimism gap and the qualitative theory could be an artifact of recruitment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Backlash against genAI by fiction writers should be read as a self-protective labor strategy, since informal social pressure has already led some publishers to retract AI plans.
  • Marginalized writers are the ones most exposed to genAI's harms, so technology deployment that ignores material conditions in publishing would widen existing income and stability gaps.
  • Consent-and-compensation regimes for copyrighted training data would directly address the ethical objection most writers in the study raise.
  • Claims that genAI will democratize creativity run against the barriers writers actually name: precarity, low income, and uncertain career prospects, not lack of skill or tools.
  • If soul is the source of value in fiction for these writers, then labelling AI-generated work and watermarking would help readers who want human-written fiction find it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test whether writers' rejection of genAI would soften under a fully consensual, compensated training-data regime; the strength of the soul objection suggests it would not, so technical fixes like watermarking would address only part of the harm described.
  • If precarity rather than identity is the operative mechanism, the qualitative theory may generalize to other freelance creative workers who labor alone and depend on copyright, such as illustrators, translators, and editors, a hypothesis the authors' planned control-group analysis can partially check.
  • Recruiting the same survey from venues where AI is not a central topic would be a direct test of the sample-dependence concern the authors flag; a large drop in the very negative responses would show that the result partly reflects the recruitment channel.
  • Because writers already refuse to work with AI-using publishers and platforms, genAI adoption may split the market into explicitly human-labelled work and openly AI-produced work, rather than uniformly changing one industry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This mixed-methods paper surveys 137 professional fiction writers recruited by snowball sampling, with an overrepresentation of queer and disabled writers. The authors split the sample into 54 queer disabled writers and 75 non-queer/non-disabled writers, report Mann-Whitney comparisons on Likert-scaled attitudes toward the fiction-writing industry and generative AI, and develop a grounded-theory analysis of 16 queer/disabled writers' free-text responses. The paper's central claim is that queer and disabled writers are markedly more pessimistic than other writers about the impact of AI on their industry, and that this pessimism is grounded in existing precarity, ethical objections to copyrighted training data, and a view of AI writing as lacking intentional 'soul.' The authors describe individual and collective strategies of boundary-setting, momentum-building, and public backlash, and offer policy recommendations.

Significance. If the comparative pessimism claim holds, the paper provides valuable evidence that generative AI's harms are experienced disproportionately by already-marginalized writers, and it reframes online backlash as a material self-protection strategy rather than mere polarization. The study's strengths include its genuinely understudied population, honest disclosure of recruitment and analysis limitations, rich qualitative material, and engagement with existing professional-writer surveys and AI-harm literature. The contribution is potentially important for conversations about AI labor impacts and for designers and policymakers. However, the quantitative support for the headline comparative claim is more fragile than the abstract suggests, and the recruitment strategy introduces a direct threat to the internal validity of the group comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 3 / §4] The comparative quantitative claim rests on 15 Mann-Whitney tests with no multiple-comparison correction and no reported effect sizes. Only one p-value (p=0.0035 for the global 'Effects of genAI' item) is close to the Bonferroni threshold of 0.05/15≈0.0033 and does not survive it; the industry-specific comparisons cited in the abstract (p=0.049, p=0.045, and p=0.033) clearly do not survive even a mild correction. The word 'markedly' in the abstract therefore outruns the evidence as reported. Please report effect sizes with confidence intervals (for example Cliff's delta or rank-biserial correlation), apply or justify a correction for multiple testing, and either soften the 'markedly' claim or show that the aggregate pattern is robust.
  2. [§3 and §9.2] The differential recruitment design threatens the internal validity of the central comparison. Recruitment began from the first author's own Bluesky account, which is likely followed by a self-selected, highly online segment of queer and disabled writers already engaged in AI discourse, while the control group was drawn more heavily from general writing Slacks and Discords. The paper's own §9.2 acknowledges that the sample may be more polarized than a random sample, but it does not test the alternative explanation that the observed group difference is an artifact of recruitment channel. Please include a sensitivity analysis using any available source-of-recruitment information, or otherwise demonstrate that the pessimism gap persists after accounting for recruitment channel.
  3. [§3.1] The comparison groups were defined after observing the overrepresentation of queer and disabled writers in the sample, and the hypothesis of greater pessimism was then tested on the same data. This post-hoc decision inflates the evidentiary value of the p-values in Table 3. The paper is transparent about the decision, which is commendable, but the statistical language should be adjusted to treat the finding as exploratory rather than confirmatory. At a minimum, the Discussion and Limitations should state explicitly that these p-values are not corrected for the data-dependent choice of grouping and hypothesis.
  4. [§4 / Table 3] The authors themselves note that queer and disabled writers show no significant differences from the control group on any of the individual-career questions (self rows in Table 3), despite dramatically lower reported income. The abstract's phrase 'impact of AI on their industry' is technically aligned with the significant industry-wide items, but the gap between individual- and industry-level results deserves more interpretive attention in the main text, including a discussion of whether the 'markedly' framing is warranted when the significant differences are small in magnitude and confined to industry-wide perceptions.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§1] The research question contains a typo: 'navigate and mange' should be 'navigate and manage.'
  2. [§6.2] There is a grammatical error: 'an writer' should be 'a writer.'
  3. [§8.3] The phrase 'of of harm to their mental health' should be 'harm to their mental health.'
  4. [§9.3] The word 'longditudinal' should be 'longitudinal.'
  5. [Table 2] The final row of Table 2 reports percentages (19%, 38%, 9%, 53%, 4%) that sum to 123%, which suggests an alignment or transcription error; please verify and correct the table.
  6. [References] The reference '(in Fiction [2023])' should be formatted consistently with the full name 'Humanity in Fiction,' and the same consistency check is needed for other civil-society survey citations.
  7. [§3.2 and §5] Since the grounded-theory analysis is explicitly not saturated and covers only 16 of the 54 queer/disabled writers, the sentence in §5 that 'our confidence in this preliminary theory is strong' should be paired with an explicit reminder of the unsaturation and of the fact that five control-group analyses were set aside rather than integrated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical survey whose quantitative comparison is computed from collected responses and whose qualitative theory is induced from the data, with no fitted-parameter or self-citation chain forcing the results.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical mixed-methods survey, not a derivation or formal model. The central quantitative claim that queer and disabled writers are markedly more pessimistic comes directly from Mann-Whitney tests on Likert-scale responses reported in Table 3; no parameter is fitted to a subset and then relabeled as a prediction. The qualitative grounded theory is induced from free-text responses using Corbin and Strauss methodology, with the concept of "soul" explicitly identified as an in situ term used by the writers themselves rather than imported from prior work. The only author-linked element is recruitment: snowball sampling began by advertising on the first author's Bluesky account because the first author is a professional fiction writer, and the paper itself flags in §9.2 that this may overemphasize online discourse or produce more polarized responses than a fully random sample. That is a disclosed sampling and external-validity limitation, not a circular derivation: the comparison between identity groups is computed from responses within the collected sample, and the paper does not use recruitment channel to define the outcome or to force the statistical result. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no definitional equivalence between inputs and outputs. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters were fitted; the paper reports sample statistics and p-values. The main assumptions are definitional and sampling-related. The analytic categories ('soul', 'momentum', 'genAI boundaries') are presented as grounded in participants' language rather than as newly postulated entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Professional fiction writer is defined as anyone who has ever received any money for prose fiction.
    Used in §3 to define the sample. This broad definition includes many very low-income writers and shapes all income comparisons.
  • domain assumption The snowball sample recruited from the first author's networks can stand for queer and disabled professional fiction writers.
    Load-bearing for generalizing the results; the authors note overrepresentation of queer and disabled writers and possible Bluesky polarization in §9.2.
  • domain assumption Self-identification as queer and/or disabled is a sufficient grouping variable.
    The paper groups writers by self-identification, and notes the disability question differs from the Author's Guild's ADA-based question in §3.1.
  • standard math Mann-Whitney U tests are valid for comparing the ordinal Likert responses.
    The quantitative comparisons in Tables 2 and 3 rely on this test; no distributional or independence violations are discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precarity and Solidarity: Preliminary results on a study of queer and disabled fiction writers' experiences with generative AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTGLVSFQ

@misc{pith2026241204575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precarity and Solidarity: Preliminary results on a study of queer and disabled fiction writers' experiences with generative AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTGLVSFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04575}
}
read the original abstract

We have undertaken a mixed-methods study of fiction writers' experiences and attitudes with generative AI, primarily focused on the experiences of queer and disabled writers. We find that queer and disabled writers are markedly more pessimistic than non-queer and non-disabled writers about the impact of AI on their industry, although pessimism is the majority attitude for both groups. We explore ways that generative AI exacerbates existing sources of instability and precarity in the publishing industry, reasons why writers are philosophically opposed to its use, and individual and collective strategies used by marginalized fiction writers to safeguard their industry from harms associated with generative AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agents, authors question harpercollins ai deal

    Andrew Albanese, Jim Milliot, and John Maher. Agents, authors question harpercollins ai deal. Publishers Weekly, November 19 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    How Hollywood writers triumphed over AI - and why it matters

    Dani Anguiano and Lois Beckett. How Hollywood writers triumphed over AI - and why it matters. The Guardian, October 1 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Case tracker: Artificial intelligence, copyrights and class actions

    BakerHoestetler. Case tracker: Artificial intelligence, copyrights and class actions. https://www.bakerlaw.com/services/artificial-intelligence-ai/case-tracker-artificial-intelligence-copyrights-and-class-actions/, accessed October 24, 2024, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 610--623, 2021

    Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 610--623, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Personal communication, August 19 2024

    Hannah Bowman. Personal communication, August 19 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Extracting training data from large language models

    Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pages 2633--2650, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Editor's Desk: W ritten by a human

    Neil Clarke. Editor's Desk: W ritten by a human. https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/clarke_04_23/, April 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Editor's Desk: S tatus report

    Neil Clarke. Editor's Desk: S tatus report. https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/clarke_08_24/, September 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Tor tried to hide AI art on a book cover, and it is a mess

    Linda Codega. Tor tried to hide AI art on a book cover, and it is a mess. Gizmodo, December 16 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Open submissions 2024 update: 15th April 2024

    Desola Coker. Open submissions 2024 update: 15th April 2024. https://angryrobotbooks.com/2024/04/open-submissions-2024-update-15th-april-2024/, April 15 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    The Beyond the Fence musical and Computer Says Show documentary

    Simon Colton, Maria Teresa Llano, Rose Hepworth, John Charnley, Catherine V Gale, Archie Baron, Fran c ois Pachet, Pierre Roy, Pablo Gerv \'a s, Nick Collins, et al. The Beyond the Fence musical and Computer Says Show documentary. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Co...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory

    Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics

    Kimberl \'e Crenshaw. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In Feminist legal theories, pages 23--51. Routledge, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Amazon publishing statistics

    Dimitrije Curcic. Amazon publishing statistics. https://wordsrated.com/amazon-publishing-statistics/, January 12 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Closure announcement

    Julie Ann Dawson. Closure announcement. https://www.bardsandsages.com/closure-announcement.html, March 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Eloundou, S

    T. Eloundou, S. Manning, P. Mishkin, and D. Rock. GPTs are GPTs: an early look at the labor market impact potential of large language models. In arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10130, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Vocational awe and librarianship: The lies we tell ourselves

    Fobazi Ettarh. Vocational awe and librarianship: The lies we tell ourselves. In the Library With the Lead Pipe, January 10 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    The public lending right (PLR) program

    Canada Council for the Arts. The public lending right (PLR) program. https://publiclendingright.ca/, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Addressing the “why?” in computational creativity: A non-anthropocentric, minimal model of intentional creative agency

    Christian Guckelsberger, Christoph Salge, and Simon Colton. Addressing the “why?” in computational creativity: A non-anthropocentric, minimal model of intentional creative agency. In International Conference on Computational Creativity 2017. Association for Computational Creat...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Key takeaways from the Authors Guild’s 2023 author income survey

    The Authors Guild. Key takeaways from the Authors Guild’s 2023 author income survey. https://authorsguild.org/news/key-takeaways-from-2023-author-income-survey/, September 27 2023 a

    2023

  13. [21]

    Practical tips for authors to protect their works from ai use

    The Authors Guild. Practical tips for authors to protect their works from ai use. https://authorsguild.org/news/practical-tips-for-authors-to-protect-against-ai-use-ai-copyright-notice-and-web-crawlers/, September 8 2023 b

    2023

  14. [22]

    Survey reveals 90 percent of writers believe authors should be compensated for the use of their books in training generative AI

    The Authors Guild. Survey reveals 90 percent of writers believe authors should be compensated for the use of their books in training generative AI . https://authorsguild.org/news/ai-survey-90-percent-of-writers-believe-authors-should-be-compensated-for-ai-training-use/, May 15 2023 c

    2023

  15. [23]

    Authors & editors survey 2023

    Humanity in Fiction. Authors & editors survey 2023. https://docsend.com/view/2v2sytxjey83nd4b, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Creative writing with an AI -powered writing assistant: Perspectives from professional writers

    Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, and Sehmon Burnam. Creative writing with an AI -powered writing assistant: Perspectives from professional writers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05030, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Jonathan Hanna, Alex an Flowers, and Timnit Gebru

    Harry H. Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Jonathan Hanna, Alex an Flowers, and Timnit Gebru. AI art and its impact on artists. In AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Montreal, QC, August 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    a \"a skel \

    Anna-Kaisa Kaila, Andr \'e Holzapfel, and Petra J \"a \"a skel \"a inen. Gardening frictions in creative AI: emerging art practices and their design implications. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Creativity, J \"o nk \"o ping, Sweden, June 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Amazon's antitrust paradox

    Lina M Khan. Amazon's antitrust paradox. Yale Law Journal, 126: 0 710, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    A watermark for large language models

    John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz, Ian Miers, and Tom Goldstein. A watermark for large language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 17061--17084. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Fair learning

    Mark A Lemley and Bryan Casey. Fair learning. Texas Law Review, 99: 0 743, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Why writers are at a loss for words

    Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society. Why writers are at a loss for words. https://www.alcs.co.uk/news/why-writers-are-at-a-loss-for-words/, December 6 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Please SHARE! Writers! We want to apologize

    Uncanny Magazine. Please SHARE! Writers! We want to apologize... [social media post]. https://bsky.app/profile/uncannymagazine.bsky.social/post/3l6675ofnyn22, October 10 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Mesler, Katharine Howie, Jennifer Chernishenko, Mingnan Nancy Shen, and Jessica Vredenburg

    Rhiannon M. Mesler, Katharine Howie, Jennifer Chernishenko, Mingnan Nancy Shen, and Jessica Vredenburg. The association between political identity centrality and cancelling proclivity. Acta Psychologia, 244, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Storywise and open submissions FAQ's

    Amy Portsmouth. Storywise and open submissions FAQ's . https://angryrobotbooks.com/2024/04/open-submissions-2024/, April 8 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Intentionality gap and preter-intentionality in generative artificial intelligence

    Roberto Redaelli. Intentionality gap and preter-intentionality in generative artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY, pages 1--8, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Revealed: The authors whose pirated books are powering generative AI

    Alex Reisner. Revealed: The authors whose pirated books are powering generative AI . The Atlantic, Aug 19 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Nightshade: Prompt-specific poisoning attacks on text-to-image generative models

    Shawn Shan, Wenxin Ding, Josephine Passananti, Stanley Wu, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y Zhao. Nightshade: Prompt-specific poisoning attacks on text-to-image generative models. In 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 212--212. IEEE Computer Society, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    To books criticized for use of AI- generated art in 'Gothikana' cover design

    Sophia Stewart. To books criticized for use of AI- generated art in 'Gothikana' cover design. Publishers Weekly, Feb 21 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Authors shocked to find AI ripoffs of their books being sold on Amazon

    James Tapper. Authors shocked to find AI ripoffs of their books being sold on Amazon . The Guardian, Sep 30 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Catherine Tobler

    E. Catherine Tobler. The Deadlands also saw this during our last open period... [social media post]. https://bsky.app/profile/ect.bsky.social/post/3l6dtdarc7n2x, October 12 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    SFWA minimum pro rate now in effect

    Jeremiah Tolbert. SFWA minimum pro rate now in effect. Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers' Association Blog, September 3 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    ` Clay to play with': Generative AI tools in UX and industrial design practice

    Severi Uusitalo, Antti Salovaara, Tero Jokela, and Marja Salmimaa. ` Clay to play with': Generative AI tools in UX and industrial design practice. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pages 1566--1578, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    a m \"a l \

    Veera Vimpari, Annakaisa Kultima, Perttu H \"a m \"a l \"a inen, and Christian Guckelsberger. "An Adapt-or-Die Type of Situation" : Perception, adoption, and use of text-to-image generation AI by game industry professionals. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interact...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Poisoning language models during instruction tuning

    Alexander Wan, Eric Wallace, Sheng Shen, and Dan Klein. Poisoning language models during instruction tuning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 35413--35425. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    An economic solution to copyright challenges of generative ai

    Jiachen T Wang, Zhun Deng, Hiroaki Chiba-Okabe, Boaz Barak, and Weijie J Su. An economic solution to copyright challenges of generative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13964, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Not even NYT bestsellers are safe from AI cover art

    Jess Weatherbed. Not even NYT bestsellers are safe from AI cover art. The Verge, May 15 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Artificial intelligence survey

    International Thriller Writers. Artificial intelligence survey. https://thrillerwriters.org/artificial-intelligence-survey/, March 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.