The AI Witch Hunts Have Started

Authors losing contracts. Editors being sued. Contests coming into disrepute. And all this pales in comparison to the slander and accusations that are flying in every which direction.

I'm seeing an increasing number of posts from self-publishing authors now afraid of being accused of using AI to write their stories. Some of these posts are in response to random comments about covers that they've just had commissioned, suggesting that the author was scammed by someone using AI in the design. Other posts are because the author favors punctuation that has now become a "tell-tale sign" of whether someone is using AI or not—like a writer not using AI is not capable of producing anything that might be grammatically correct. And let's not forget the authors who are being accused of using AI to pump it out at a rapid rate, just because they're publishing six books a year. Yet, I personally know Harlequin Romance writers who are contracted to do just that—write at least six books a year.

Unfortunately, when the lynch mob gets an idea stuck in their heads, there's nothing that anyone can do to prove otherwise.

The mob says it's so, so the mob must be right. Right?

WRONG!

Yet, it doesn't take away the fear.

Emotions are running high, and those with the pitch forks are ready to pounce. And many authors are now scared… and all because of the AI mess that has landed at our feet.

It's time to put a little perspective into this and right-size the situation.

The Training Conundrum

Part of the issue with everything going on is the anger over how AI-generative programs were trained in the first place. The courts are now filled with cases on their dockets regarding the lawful acquisition of training materials. And creatives everywhere have a right to be angry about this, because the value of our work has been reduced to nothing, simply because Big Tech deemed it so.

But AI-generative technology is here to stay. It's not going away. So, instead of harping on about whether training materials were sourced legally or not—leaving that for the courts to decide—we should be turning our attention to how the technology is being used (or abused) and how we will respond as an industry.

Accusing everyone of using AI in their work with no proof to back up those claims—except to say that you've seen a lot of AI art and you just know—is not going to help anyone. If anything, all it is doing is fueling the fear and anger, and giving writers and other creatives no way of moving forward.

Seriously, there is absolutely no way to know with any certainty if something was AI-generated or not—not with 100% accuracy using some automated detection program.

You can put Charles Dickens through an AI detection program, and it will come back as a probability of 80% or higher that it was AI-generated. Charles Dickens! And I can guarantee that there was absolutely no way that Charles Dickens used AI to write his stories. He wouldn't have even used a typewriter… because they didn't exist when he was writing. (It turns out that the first commercially available typewriter was invented two years after Charles Dickens published his last novel, Our Mutual Friend.)

But the reason why Charles Dickens comes back with a high probability in some of these AI detection algorithms is because many LLMs were trained on Charles Dickens during the early stages of development. But they were also trained on Jane Austen, Mary Shelley, Frank L. Baum, Mark Twain, Agatha Christie, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and William Shakespeare. Those early developers used everything they could get their hands on that was in the public domain. Then they started turning their attention to things that were still protected under copyright… which is part of the anger, and I'll leave that part of the discussion right there.

If we were to go back and analyze all of the works that were in the public domain that were used in those early training sessions, we'll see a few things that are consistent behind how language is constructed. But that's the point! LLMs were trained to develop consistent skills with the Great Works.

AI uses em-dashes because the Great Works did. AI uses semi-colons and colons because the Great Works did. And AI uses adverbs, quotation marks, and any other writing device because the Great Works did.

AI uses bulleted and numbered lists because that has become standard practice within technical and business writing to add clarity to a list of complex ideas. And the "rule of three" is something that has been around for a long time, creating effect through alliteration. Just look at the previous paragraph, and right there is the "rule of three" at work.

But you're just going to have to take my word for it that this article wasn't written by AI. Instead, it was written by the meager human who seems to be a lone voice of reason in a world filled with those willing to crucify anyone who just happens to do things differently.

And if my editor struggles to take my em-dashes and ellipses away from me, do you honestly believe that I'm going to let the lynch mob take them away? You can pry them out of my cold, dead hands… and just hope that I'm not clinching onto a deadman's switch instead.

Cover Designers Attacked Too?

But let's come back to the social media post that actually sparked this blog post.

On Instagram, I encountered a video post from an author who was almost in tears because they had spent US$300 on a cover that everyone around her (including her husband) said looked like it was created using AI, despite the fact that the graphic designer involved said that it wasn't. The author loved the cover, but they felt that they couldn't use it, because they feared that their work would be judged as AI-generated if she used this cover that so many believed was AI-generated. At the end of the video, there was a glimpse of the cover involved—and it was a nice cover for what looked like it would be a romantic comedy in an academic or science lab setting.

As I read through the comments, I was getting more and more angry. Because not only were the comments constantly reinforcing lynch mob mentality, insisting that this cover was AI-generated (completely ignoring the claims from the cover designer that it wasn't), but I also saw comments about how the writer didn't "pay enough" for the cover… how they "paid too much"… how she should "report the graphic designer for misleading clients"… and the list went on.

I wanted to tell the author to just use the cover. She loved it. She loved everything about it. So, she should have felt confident enough to just use it.

If the graphic designer said that they didn't use AI in the design of that cover and were willing to put that in writing (even if it was just an email), then the public should be willing to take that graphic designer's word for it. Instead, the lynch mob was ready to hang that cover designer out to dry.

And the proof that everyone was using to say that the cover was AI-generated was, "I've looked at a lot of AI art… so I just know." That argument is utter hogwash. Not only is there no scientific basis behind that statement, but "I just know" would never stand up in a court of law. There needs to be facts and evidence to back up such claims.

Saying "I just know" is almost as bad as a supposed copyright lawyer trying to convince me that because my cover designer used a font found in an online database that my cover was AI-generated. The same "lawyer" also tried to convince me that because my cover designer used Adobe Photoshop that my covers were AI-generated. Oh lordy, that was a conversation and a half as I watched that lawyer dig a deeper and deeper hole of ignorance.

And regarding the fee the author paid for the cover… US$300 is on par for certain designers, depending on the add-ons associated with your contracts. Hell, if I converted the amounts I paid to my NZ-based designer to USD, it would have been approximately US$300 for the cover of Dancing in the Purple Rain, and that cover is up for an award—Best Artwork in the Sir Julius Vogel Awards. And I know with certainty that E.L. Julian (my cover designer for that book) didn't use AI in my cover. (She was angry as hell when someone accused her of using AI for any of her artwork. She had videos proving that she was doing everything herself… by hand… or more appropriately, by mouse or stylus pen being controlled by a human hand.)

The head hurts as I try to find the energy to reason with these idiots with pitchforks. But they're the ones with the pitchforks, so they must be right. Right?

WRONG!

Rotten Advice Being Given

But let's shift our attention to some of the rotten advice that is now being handed out by the droves.

Because of the AI mess, I'm now seeing post after post, recommending that to prove that our stories were written by humans, we should leave the typos and the grammatical errors in the text. We should not properly edit our work.

I see that advice and have only one response:

Are you f***ing kidding? You can't seriously be advocating for writers to deliberately lower our standards to create substandard slop… just to prove that we're human. No f***ing way!

I feel so strongly about this that, yes, I put it in bold and swore!

And heaven forbid if the idea of using an editor is ever mentioned. Editors are now being sued because an author's work was deemed as AI-generated—and the editor was blamed for using AI to rewrite the author's work. OMG, when I saw that article… I had to breathe several times just to contain the rage.

I don't know about anyone else, but I absolutely refuse to lower my standards just because some prick can't cope with the idea that someone might actually know how punctuation works, that they know how to write coherent sentences, and that they can write a strong, complex plot on their own… without a computer program to help plot it out.

No! Just no!

Lowering my standards would do a massive disservice to my readers and myself.

My main goal for writing (and publishing) is to produce a body of work that I can be proud of for years to come. How can I be proud of something if I know with certainty that it wasn't the best that I could do? Call that egotistical if you want, but I'm a prideful creature, and I refuse to not put my best into everything that I do.

My Advice to Combat This Mess

I understand the fear because I feel it too. And I have a feeling that this anti-AI lynch mob situation will get worse before it gets better. Other editors are coming to the same conclusion: All authors now need to be prepared to be accused of using AI.

In preparation for the impending witch burnings, there are two aspects to my advice: an AI policy and documentation to prove your creative process.

• Write yourself an AI policy, dictating what you will and won't use AI-generative technology for. Make your AI policy public if you want to. But public or not, stick to it.
• Keep copies of your drafts at various stages (initial concept, first draft, first major rewrite, pre-beta readers, pre-copyeditor, etc.). Become a data packrat. If you are ever in a situation where you need to prove to those in power that your work is your own (be that a court of law, copyright office... or, dare I say it, the Amazon overlords), you will need that documentation of your creative process.

Regardless of how your work comes to be in existence, make sure that you are generating content that meets your standards, not someone else's. Take prideful ownership of whatever you create.

If someone else can't accept that, then that's a them problem, not a you problem.

And please, I beg you, stop asking the "hive mind" of social media (which is better described as the lynch mob) for advice, because the lynch mob has no flipping clue what they're doing. If you really need to ask a "hive mind" for advice, then restrict the pool to the trusted voices who actually know your work and understand what it is you're trying to achieve. Don't ask on social media, because the answers are only going to fuel your fear and not give you any clear direction on how to solve your issues.

Your work is your work. You are the only one that needs to be happy with what you've created. And the naysayers can just go jump in a lake and drown.

---

Addendum (July 5, 2026)

In the days that followed the publication of this post, I became hyperaware of comments from fellow editors that placed them publicly in the "I just know" camp when it comes to AI. While an editor might have their suspicions, they can't "know" with 100% certainty unless the author in question admits to it. Yet, these comments are fanning the flames of the anti-AI lynch mob and encouraging the AI witch hunts to move into new corners. It has to stop!

These "I just know" comments from other editors are sowing fear among writers everywhere, leaving writers with no clear direction on what they need to do to move forward. And quite frankly, I've had enough!

I'm now making a list of these editors who insist on posting messages about how "they just know", be that by way of their supposed AI-telltale signs, examples that they think show off their AI-detection skills, or anything else that only adds to this AI witch hunt.

If you are an editor who publicly falls into the "I just know" camp, I don't want to work with you and I refuse to refer clients to your services. I want to support the editors who are publicly supporting writers, giving them direction and helping writers feel confident about their work.

I am not anti-AI. And I'm not pro-AI either. I'm pro-writer! And too many writers are running scared in this AI mess. Editors NEED to be the voice of reason in this, helping writers to feel confident in their next steps. Yes, editors can highlight why certain writing traits are "bad", but educating about how to turn "bad" writing into "good" writing is a completely different message than just saying that "AI-writing is 'bad'."

I am not anti-AI. And I'm not pro-AI either. I'm pro-writer! And too many writers are running scared in this AI mess. Editors NEED to be the voice of reason in this, helping writers to feel confident in their next steps. Yes, editors can highlight why certain writing traits are "bad", but educating about how to turn "bad" writing into "good" writing is a completely different message than just saying that "AI-writing is 'bad'."