Yikes! If you’re a bookish type of person you will have heard that two novels got dumped from this year’s Ockhams – New Zealand’s premier publishing prize – a week or so ago. This happened because they…gasp…had covers made with the aid of…gasp…ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!
Newsroom published three articles on the scandal. The infamous covers and their woeful tale ended up with this slightly misleading headline in the UK Guardian:
“Authors dumped from New Zealand’s top book prize after AI used in cover designs”
In the article Nicola Legat, chair of the trust that runs the awards, is quoted and paraphrased thusly:
“The trust does not take lightly a decision that prevents the latest works of two of New Zealand’s most esteemed writers from being considered for the 2026 award,” Legat said.
The decision to amend the criteria around AI was spurred by a desire to support creative and copyright interests of the country’s writers and illustrators, she said.
“As AI evolves, there may well be a need for the trust to revisit and develop the criteria further.”
I had some sympathy for the judges’ decision, but jeez…I feel pretty stink for the authors, the publisher and the designers. They were all just going about their probably modestly-sized business – when all hell broke loose.
RNZ’s Facebook post on the incident heaves with negative comments:
Saskia, who obviously knows very little about the economics of book publishing reckoned:
“I mean especially if they’re a top author they should have budget for a real artist to do the cover.”
Kalee, a Photoshop expert with an unusual hobby observed:
“As someone who has photoshopped a lot of peoples faces onto cats, for fun, this cover would not be difficult to make without ai.”
Duncan liked to pick on the professionals:
“If there was a ‘professional production and design team who worked on the books’ (with AI covers), they should be sacked.”
Even I, as an owner of a very small publishing business, had something slightly embarrassing to say about the issue on the page:
“We [Firestarter] published a book recently with an AI image on the inside cover…it was an accident! It [the image] looked so convincing our designer [me!] didn’t even think it was a possibility.
For what it’s worth, we do have a No AI policy…it’s unethical and it looks cheesy as. It’s called slop for a reason.”
The whole sorry mess has made great news, however it has also been a total PR disaster for all concerned.
But as all good news stories go…there has been a development.
*
Yikes 2.0! If you’re a bookish person you will have probably heard by now that the New Zealand Book Awards Trust (NZBAT) has reversed its decision. The AI-aided books are – as of Friday December 5 at 8.02am according to a punctilious Steve Braunias of Newsroom – back in the awards.
Here’s what NZBAT, with support from the Publishers Association of New Zealand (PANZ), Booksellers Aotearoa NZ and the New Zealand Society of Authors, have said about the decision’s reversal on their website:
The two books in question, by Stephanie Johnson and Elizabeth Smither, have a complex entry history which centres on their publisher, who has reported to the Trust that he had not fully engaged with the new rules and had also not fully understood at the time of entry that the two book covers were created with AI.
“It is essential that entries to New Zealand’s national book awards, and especially to the Jann Medlicott Acorn Prize for Fiction, which has a $65,000 prize, be made with all due care,” Trust chair Nicola Legat says. “However, in this instance the collateral damage done has been to two very fine authors, and so it is with this in mind that the Trust has decided that it should allow their entries.”
Despite not raising this issue at the time the new rule was announced, some publishers are now advising that they felt they had been given insufficient notice of the inclusion of a rule regarding AI use. The Trust has taken this on board while retaining the restrictions on AI-authored text for the 2026 awards.
To extend natural justice, three other publishers who had read the rules and who advised the Trust administrator that their book covers were originated using AI will be offered the opportunity to resubmit.
“Three other publishers who had read the rules”. I love that line. So pointed. A backdown without being a backdown.
Anyway…this is all very confusing, but that confusion is understandable. AI, whether we like it or not, is here. But none of us – including the folks at the Ockhams obviously – really know what it means, or will mean to us.
Here’s more from the NZBAT press release:
The [anti AI] rule was created in response to the critical issues AI raises for the publishing sector.
As PANZ president Eboni Waitere noted in the PANZ letter of support for the Trust: “We are dedicated to strongly protecting the intellectual property of our writers and artists.”
The economics of most publishing these days is incredibly lopsided in favour of a small number of big-name businesses. Author and guy-with-a-lot-of-opinions-on-such-things, Cory Doktorow, argues that the publishing industry is made up of a few dominant monopoly players who have also created a monopsony – a business that doesn’t just unfairly dominate other similar businesses – but controls the supply and labour chains (authors and other creatives) that it feeds off.
While modern print and digital technology has made the publishing of actual wood-based books easy, it’s become horrendously costly. Printing, paper, binding, distribution, design and marketing are not only expensive but they’re complex to manage on terms that are viable for the small players.
I’m guessing Sugarcube, the designers of the books that have been questioned by the Ockhams, did the work on a tight budget for Quentin Wilson Publishing’s even tighter budget.*
While both businesses could be accused of being naive, they were both just doing their jobs…trying to make a go of publishing the work of writers in a difficult economy and in an industry that’s kind of broken.
On a personal level, I’m going through the same dilemma as the lovely people at the Ockhams. I don’t want to willingly use AI, but I’m already having to accept it because my clients are using it.
I’ve recently fine-tuned a ChatGPT-designed logo that was given to me to adapt by a client. Believe it or not it’s a great and highly original logo. Unfortunately for me, I only got to charge out for a half day’s work, not the usual week’s.
I’m also about to design a book about cricket. The Word Doc that I’ve just downloaded is 270,000 words. The authors used ChatGPT to downsize the original behemoth of a manuscript from a whopping 360,000 words. They also used the AI software to merge the writing styles of both writers into one style.
I can’t criticise either of these clients. They are just trying to save time and money. In the case of the cricket book, the savings in time and production costs are huge.
I also need to make a living. While I have concerns about their use of AI, I was never going to turn down the work.
This whole Ockhams thing is important for everyone with an interest in the industry to come to terms with, but I can’t help but feel like the world will come to terms with it before old fogeys like me.
Why I don’t like AI design:
- It threatens my design business.
- It relies on the creativity of others by stealing then regurgitating their hard work.
- It’s hugely environmentally damaging.
- It’s mega businesses shitting on the little people…again.
- It’s called slop for a reason.
But, as is hinted at in the NZBAT backflip – this story is not over.
Why I think AI design will “win”:
- It’s already winning. While whole covers designed by AI are kind of easy to spot, using AI to make parts of covers is incredibly easy to do and totally convincing. AI is a button-click away on most industry graphics packages. Want your photo to have a blue sky instead of a grey one? Click. Want to clearcut your model’s curly hair? Click. Who’s to know? Will NZBAT be in a position to judge next time? How will they quantify an AI cover? Will 1/10th AI be alright? Will 50% AI be too much? Do you count pixels to find out? Will publishers be asked to supply original artwork and software logs?
- AI design is only going to get “better”, more convincing, and therefore harder to spot.
- As new generations come to terms with AI and AI comes to terms with us, it will just become accepted.
- Once the inevitable AI bubble bursts, the winners will solidify their monopsony, and those of us who are still alive will go about our daily lives none-the-wiser. As old people like me die out, our replacements will adapt…if they can dodge the death rays of the AI drones patrolling the skies of a drowned world.
But in the meantime we thought you’d like to know that Firestarter is working on a book of short stories by Manawatū writer W.D. Muirhead. The book, a very original and human work, is about to enter its production phase.
Fonts are about to be chosen. We’re thinking hard about what size the pages will be. We’re hoping to work with an actual, human illustrator. We have a very coincidental working title:
“The Artificial Shore”
Because we love books and because this book is “ours”, we’re going to go all out with its design and production. We’re lucky because I am a designer who likes – and has the time – to do what is hopefully good and “real” work.
I could “easily” make an arguably appropriate cover that fits with the book’s title using an AI prompt.
“An artificial shore…hmmmm.”
“A beach. Plastic hundreds-and-thousand sand. Luminous Fanta waves. A polyester fish stranded, blowing psychedelic bubbles as it struggles to breath bubblegum-flavoured air. The fish is trying to walk on genetically modified legs. Can you do a version where there’s more than one of these poor fish. Perhaps there’s an entire school, floundering, slowly turning into hundreds-and-thousands sand.”
An artificial shore made by artificial intelligence.
Amazeballs.
Other than Philip K. Dick and J.G. Ballard, who would have ever believed it was possible?
I can assure you, and a slightly worried W.D. Muirhead, that I’ll be sticking with the H.I. (Human Intelligence) functions of my photo editing software while going along with my own sense of what looks good and what’s right.
All going to plan, we will be entering the book – because it’s a great read – into next year’s Ockhams.
I wonder if I can make the cover LOOK LIKE it was made by ChatGPT?
Now there’s a challenge.
* While guessing about the motives and actions of the designer and publisher in question isn’t proper journalism, I’m not a proper journo, but I also reckon they’ve probably been through enough. I chose not to hassle them for their opinion.
For a bit of fun, I created a hybrid of this post and the offending book. I did it in Affinity Photo and Adobe Indesign. It took about two hours. Most of that time was spent looking for stock images of a suitable grumpy cat and a drop of blood. I’m pretty sure the cat is a real cat, however I can’t be sure that the blook is not AI generated. The person who created the blood does not say that it is, and the stock library I got it from doesn’t sell AI generated images…but really…can I trust that?
The image isn’t quite as “convincing” as the AI image on the cover of Obligate Carnivore, but you should get the point.
Links: