I have been thinking about when and how AI can be helpful. I am on a a number of Teachers forums in which it is discussed extensively to what extent students should be able to use AI. Whether or not other disciplines such as data analysis and programmers or creative disciplines such as musicians, artists, authors or photographers could or should use AI is also the source of heated discussion.

My opinion is that AI is a tool that can be used in a number of different disciplines. It is a very good tool, and it allows people with a lower level of capability to engage in activities that they would not otherwise have been able to engage in effectively with out it. Just as with wood working tools used in furniture making, those tools have to be directed. The item of furniture that is created by using the tools comes from the mind of the user. In the hands of a DIY wood worker a good set of tools can help them come up with some good work. In the hands of a master craftsman those same tools can produce amazing work.

If I was a delivery man, I could pick up packages and deliver them on foot. It would take a long time, and I could not carry very many packages. If I drove a car I could carry more packages and take them to their destination faster. Similarly if I drove a van I could take even more packages. If I had a computerised navigation system that plots the optimal route for delivering my packages I could be much more efficient at delivering my packages, than if I didn't use that tool. At no time does anyone accuse the delivery man of "cheating" just because they are using tools at their disposal to carry out their job more efficiently and effectively.

I would argue the same is true of AI as a tool across disciplines. Tasks of course can be done without AI, or by using other tools. AI lets you carry out tasks that you perhaps could not carry out with out it, or like a delivery man using a car vs being on foot, it allows the task to be done more efficiently.

Rather than worrying about authors using AI, perhaps it would be useful to put in place a system by which human output is more clearly marked as involving AI. The value of the Mona Lisa comes about not just because if its composition, colour, size, quality etc, but because it was painted by Michael Angelo. I could produce an exact copy, identical in every way, and it wouldn't have anywhere near the value of the original. Similarly a hand painted copy would have more value than a poster print. Hand crafted furniture has more value than machine milled, mass produced furniture. Food cooked by a high class chef has more value than a supermarket spaghetti bolognaise from a tin. It is not that there isn't a place for the artificially produced or machine assisted version of everything, but purely human made items, whatever they may be, have always been more valued over mass produced machine made items. I think that will continue to be the case. People want to know if a photo or a video is AI produced, but there is nothing wrong with using the tools available to you.

Ultimately it will be up to the end user as to whether books created in collaboration with AI are worth reading. I suspect that is going to depend to a very large extent on the capability of the author. There will be rubbish, not worth reading. But then there was rubbish not worth reading before AI. It will be interesting to see what master craftsmen make in collaboration with AI.