Sci-fi authors Scalzi and Stross decry AI's dystopian impact on their craft

www.theregister.com · 2026-08-03 · by Long Nguyen ·generic
LLMs are theft by 'absolute scum' who make life harder for writers by putting them in copyright peril

Sci-fi authors Scalzi and Stross decry AI's dystopian impact on their craft

Two prominent science fiction authors have decried the impact of AI on their craft.

"I do not want or need a large language model to write my fiction for me. I write fiction compulsively – before I was published I wrote for many years as a hobbyist – so why on earth would I pay someone else to take my fun away?" wrote Charles Stross in a Saturday post. Stross graciously mentioned The Register in his Laundry Files novels.

"I maintain that any serious author should shun LLMs like the plague," he added. "Did I mention the 'stealing' thing? This isn't hyperbole: I'm one of the parties to the settlement in the class action lawsuit against Anthropic AI for pirating eBooks to train their LLMs."

REG AD

"That's not my only grievance, either. You may have noticed this blog performing sluggishly or crapping out from time to time over the past few months. That's because my server is old and feeble and periodically gets swarmed by Chinese and other foreign botnets scraping data for training LLMs."

REG AD

Stross labelled AI companies "absolute scum."

"They're stealing copyrighted material to train an LLM that is intended to compete for revenue with the authors of the works they stole, and they're fine-tuning their LLMs to make them as addictive as possible in order to maximize future revenue once they pivot to token sales as their main source of income," he wrote.

"In other words, they're no different from a burglar who robs you one day then comes round to sell you your stuff back the next morning. Back in the 18th century we used to hang people like that and Sam Altman makes me question the wisdom of having stopped."

Scalzi, whose best-known works include the Old Man's War series and Hugo Award-winning novel Redshirts, on Friday commented on a recent article about a hotly tipped debut novel being pulled from publishing and film or television consideration over concerns that AI had been used to write it.

"The issue appears not to be that 'AI' material isn't copyrightable, the issue is that 'AI' is trained on copyrighted material, so prose generated from it could be contested by the original copyright holders," Scalzi wrote.

He expects publishers to look for signs of AI use, although the available detection tools are notoriously unreliable. He predicts that this will disadvantage new writers who lack a body of work dating from before the arrival of ChatGPT.

"Which is unfair," Scalzi wrote. "It's especially unfair when the makers of the tools writers use to write – I'm looking at you, Microsoft and Google – are frantically stuffing 'AI' tools into the programs writers rely on."

Then Scalzi dispensed with the diplomatic language.

REG AD

"No, Microsoft, I don’t fucking want Copilot to 'help me write' in Word, and no, Google, I don't fucking want Gemini to 'help me write' in Google Docs. The very fact these 'AI's are hovering around my writing at all is bad enough from a provenance standpoint. These 'AI' tools are making it harder for all writers in this regard, not easier."

Stross raised a related concern: "If I was crazy enough to feed the outline of a story I was working on as a prompt to ChatGPT or Claude in hope of getting the stochastic parrot to do my homework for me, then it would be only my own fault and nobody else's if the next model from the company in question was been trained \[sic\] on my book outline and could reproduce part or all of it for someone else."

Scalzi advised authors not to "incorporate 'AI' into any part of your publishing process, either: Don't use 'AI' editing, don't use 'AI' art, don't use 'AI' translation, don't use 'AI' anything that calls into dispute whether your work is actually yours. Using 'AI' cover art, for example, will immediately call into question what else in the book is 'AI.' Every other aspect of the book is implicitly tarred with the same 'AI' brush. When I say that I have it in my contracts that I require every aspect of my book production to be done by humans, it's not just because I want to honor human work and input. It's also because I'm protecting my own reputation by doing so."

Stross, however, admitted he "can see some circumstances where being able to train a local model on my work could be useful to me."

"I'd quite like a tool (running entirely locally on my own hardware, with no cloud service and no copyright-thieving grifters making bank on it via subscription fees) that digests a manuscript and derives a scene-by-scene timeline, that I could then query interactively and use to plan my next round of edits," he wrote.

He also allowed that "being able to map out where and when each protagonist and minor character shows up, and see a frequency distribution heat map of names in the manuscript, would be useful."

MORE CONTEXT

www.theregister.com · 11 images · 131 links

Comments (0)

No comments yet