Kathy let wonderful to have you on the show. What did you think when you saw that this book, Shy Girl had been pulled from shelves in the UK and the US.
Well, it's absolutely thrilled, because you know, we ghost writers are bad enough, you know, all the celebrities who put a novel out pretending that they've written it when they've been created and crafted by real writers. But a machine written novel is a whole other level of fraud to me. So yeah, I was really thrilled.
Readers were the first to raise the alarm.
It's so empty. It's flat in every way, themes, characters, plot rating. And that is because, in my opinion, large chunks of this book were written with assistance from a generative AI, and generative AI does not think, or feel or have opinions.
Now, horror novel Shy Girl has become the first book to be canceled over suspicions IO was used in large portions of the writing. According to The New York Times earlier this year, results from an AI detection program indicated that the book always get this seventy eight percent AI generated the publisher. So what are the implications for writers for readers and for the publishing industry as AI seeps into new and frightening corners of our creative industries. I'm
Daniel James, and you're listening to seven AM today. I Beloved. I was the author. Kathy led on how AI slot is threatening the future of young writers and how to protect our art from the onslaught of bots. It's Friday, April three. Kathy, it took readers making AI accusations about Shy Girl before the publisher's cottoned on. This clip from YouTube of Frankie Shelf wracked up over a million views earlier this year.
Is that it's a feeling. It is an unshakable feeling that a person would not rate like that. And again I haven't brought.
Up if you reckon you would be able to spot an AI written book yourself.
I think I would. Yeah. I mean it's a bit like when you taste margarine and you think that's not butter, or you know, when you taste it in that awful vegan kind of carb free carib chocolate, you think that's not chocolate. Well, they're non alcoholic wine. That's not a good pino. I mean, I think I could taste the authenticity, but you know, more gullible readers may not. So yeah,
we've got to call these people out. I think though, there is a great novel to be written about an also who writes a book with AI thinking they're going to get away with it and they get caught. I don't know if you read Yellow Face, which was about an author.
No, but I do actually have any of my collection that I'm going to read it.
Yeah, it's a good premise of an author stealing the work of her dead friend. So this could become like a really in joke if the author who's been caught out in this scam now writes a novel about what that was like.
Actually, that's a good way of thinking about AIS our dead friends exactly.
That's right.
Well, should point out that the author, Mea. Ballard, has denied using AI to write the book, but says an acquaintance she hired to edit the novel did hughes AI. Now, she says her name is being ruled. Should there be more checks and balances from publishers and from authors to ensure something like this doesn't happen?
Yeah, I mean, first of all, I don't quite believe her excuse, because if you hire someone to edit your work, they're usually trimming it. No author whatever allows someone us to write a real also wouldn't allow someone us to write their work for them. I mean, I think it's impossible also not to have all work and no plagiarism. You know, we do borrow things. I mean, Bridget jones diary was the whole plot was borrowed from Bride and Prejudice. You know, Steve bry wrote a really great update of
the Count of Monte Cristo. I mean, and if I overhear a conversation at dinner, you know, will I will use it and write it up in my book. So we do borrow. But to let AI write your whole novel and not to admit it is a borrowing too far.
And it's also at the point now where a lot of software programs that you use, whether it's Microsoft Word or Google Docs, have AI assistance that can prompt you to sort of condense like a three word passage if you want to. Is it getting almost impossible for authors to not have at least a fingerprint of AI in their work.
Well, I think I would say to most two authors, don't ever put your work into AI, because then you are feeding the machine. You're adding to the engine, So you have to absolutely resist the temptation to use AI in that way.
Yeah, the US and UK have both brought in a kind of certification process. We can verify that your book is written by human and get a logo on the cover, kind of like the Australian made tick. How far does that go to ensuring authenticity?
I think that is going to help a lot. You know, we put we've said the food that we're eating. They always have to read it exactly how many calories and how much sugar and that kind of thing. I think we should know what we're consuming intellectually, you know, if it's nourishing or not. So yeah, I think we should pay alsos the same respect as we do food products. I mean, what is there to say about AI, especially
when it can say everything for us? But then again can it really You know, what AI says is not original nor unique, and that's what writers are for. I mean, AI can copycat, but it can't create, which is why AI firms have to be legally bound to tell copyright owners which of our individual works they've gobbled up to
feed their ravenous data machine. I mean, copyright is a writer lifeblood, as you know, which is why artificial intelligence companies must not be allowed to use copyright protected work without permission. I mean, it's stealing for goodness sake. I know we're comvic stock, but you know, please don't steal our ideas. That's all we've.
Got coming up is the Australian government moving fast enough on AI, Kathie. The reason books like this one are able to slip through is because, on paper, AI is getting better at sort of deceiving people with its writing. And that's because companies like you said, like Anthropic and OpenAI, have ignored copyright law and news books written by authors like you and me too a lesser extent to train their programs. How damaging is that for the industry and for the next generation of writers.
Look, I think it's absolutely vital the governments protect Australian's creativity from extinction by enshrining ownership of our work. Otherwise all our wondrous ossie artists will go the way of the Tasmanian tiger and the desert bandicoot and the capricorn rabbit rat and all those other rare and exotic species
that have been said ADI lost forever. Don't write off our writers, you know, protect us, because you know society would certain be so much sadder without our wit and wisdom and our pith, that our perspicacity.
Don't you think whatever that last word meant.
Yes, perspecsidy means absolutely, very very sharp perception, which you have obviously love it.
The Australian government is looking at overhauling copyright laws to force AI giants to disclose what content they're using to train their bots and so that it's easier for creatives to go after these companies. For conversation, it's also ruled out giving our companies free copyright exemption after Ossiatis spoke out at a Senate Estimates hearing last year.
What we're talking about here is really quite simple. Some of the largest companies in the world are asking for handouts from the Australian government. They want access to Australian culture and creativity for free.
We can have exciting AI investment and a booming tech sector without pillaging our culture and selling out our artists. We can't have. I don't think at the moment, you know AI understands what a lounge room in Shepherd and Victoria smells like, are these good steps? And do you think the government is moving fast enough to protect writers?
No, they need to move much, much faster, because so is AI. I mean, I'm very good friends with Stephen Frye, who's an AI expert, and we discussed this a lot, you know, and I often send him lists of things AI can't do, you know, like limeerates, you know, that lovely feeling when you fall in love for the first time, that beautiful feeling. Limereates orgasms. Apparently it can't recreate orgasms when it's reading audiobooks and stuff. It can't do umpit farts.
So I send him these lists of things that AI can't do, and he just always says to me, not yet. So you know, it's it's moving so quickly, learning so fast, and you know, Stephen thinks so overwhelming as well. He wants to get me a bracelet. We go both wear a bracelet that just says TGIO, thank God, I'm old. We won't have to deal with the fallout of AI for all that long. But for young writers, you know,
it's a really it's a clear and present danger. He also says, not regulating AI is like not regulating nuclear power. You know, it has the power to be obviously, it has the potential to work for good, but it also could bring so much destruction.
What would real protection look like to you, Kathy.
Are not allowing AI to train on our work end of you know, we need a creative condom or something to protect us from their intrusion. So yeah, they just shouldn't be allowed to train our work and protect our copyright.
And finally, how big a danger do you think AI is for writers? Does it put your job at risk? Or are there always going to be things humans can do, especially in the creating space and in the writing space that AI cannot well, As we.
Said earlier, you know, it can't have an original or unique idea. It's just like a magpie pick, you know, it just takes from everybody else. But it is a danger. I mean it's a shame because you know, AI could actually, if it's regulated, it could be so helpful for all of us. But you know, it's a very powerful machine, but we need to build it ethically and fairly and
protect our writers at the same time. I mean, things are going so fast and getting so out of control now I kind of want to go back to the days of quill and ink and carrier pigeons and smoke signals. There are things that we can trust and control.
I'm actually seriously looking at getting myself to depend just to be part of the resistance.
Well, I know, part of the resistance, that's right. I've gone back to writing letters to people long hand and actually posting them because you know, then it's just between me and the person receiving it. I don't worry of anything being stolen or copied or whatever. So yeah, we're definitely heading into very uncharted and treacherous waters. So yeah, all tight.
Well, Kathy, thanks so much for your timing. Can expect my thank you note in the mail any day now.
That's love you, and I'll send you back a smoke signal in return.
Thanks.
Bye.
Seven Ams and Early Show from Solstice Media. It's made by Adigus Bastow, Ariel Richards, Chris dan Gate, Crystal Color, Nicole Johnston, Travis Evans, Zotonveecho, and Me Daniel James. Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope Poortier. Over a long weekend, we'll be bringing you more fresh episodes, including tomorrow's look at the budget. Dele know that the Labor government is facing voters want relief, the Reserve Bank wants restraint, and the Treasurer is stuck
in the middle. See you there