“AI-assisted” still includes AI-generated elements, which no one actually needs to be using. If you have genuine artists involved, why would they need to be generating any part of the artwork? And I can only assume this is how you end up with a historical romance novel with floral-patterned rainboots on the cover, by the way.
From your comment, it seems either you didn’t look it up or misunderstood what you read. We should also avoid making assumptions when making statements. For example, floral-patterned rainboots on a cover can be created using Photoshop. AI utilizes trained artificial neural networks to generate photos, and yes, Photoshop also uses trained artificial neural networks to enhance and create images!
Yes, I’ve been using Photoshop since the 90s. And the way that I use it hasn’t changed that much since then. I don’t use their AI features, so no, that isn’t how it works at all.
Hello, ladies - I respect your decision when it comes to taking a stance against AI, but unfortunately, it's not a black and white issue. Please allow me to post my response to you, verbatim, so anyone reading your post will have the entire picture:
(beginning of response)
The sad truth is that AI is here to stay. As I’m sure you realize, it’s not going anywhere. We can only mitigate it the best way we can. While we forbid our cover artists to use fully AI Generated covers, we leave it up to the authors whether or not they want to allow AI-assist – meaning elements like hair or an umbrella or a tree on the cover may be AI. But only if the authors want it. I will stress this again – ONLY if they want it. It is their choice. Some of our authors have no problem with AI assist. Some do. This is from our contracts:
Author has the right to opt out of AI-Assisted art, but this does not include the use of commonly used tools for artwork creation by human artist that could be considered early generation AI (including but not limited to Photoshop, Paint, etc).
So, they have a clear choice to use AI assist or not. As you know, AI as a whole has many nuances. It’s not a straight-forward issue. We do not permit AI narration on our audiobooks, nor do we permit AI generated book text of any kind. While AI may have its place, we feel that it does not have any place when it replaces what should be human-generated. That is Dragonblade’s stance.
Personally, as an author, Dragonblade does not publish my work. It is published under Kathryn Le Veque Novels and my situation is slightly different. I work with a cover artist who is also a photographer and she uses her own images, taken from cover models she has hired and paid for, to train her personally-used AI. This is a definition of ‘ethical AI’. She doesn’t use anything, or anyone, that has not been paid for and properly licensed. Because she has done almost 500 covers for me (boxed sets included), we have long since run out of cover model faces to use and re-use, so some of my later covers have faces or heads that have been generated from her personally trained AI program. Again – any images used are those she owns and has personally taken. This includes landscapes, chairs, trees, etc, as well. I have been with her for over 10 years and have the licenses, or proof that the images are hers, of everything she has used in generating AI-assist on any of my covers.
I hope this clarifies Dragonblade’s stance on AI and how we (very sparingly and only with author permission) use it. Though we have never, ever used a fully generated AI cover, our main cover artist is quite talented and she paints many of our covers, giving them an ethereal quality. But absolutely no fully-generated AI.
(end of post)
To be clear, Dragonblade absolutely do NOT use generative AI. We use AI assist created by HUMAN PEOPLE. AI Assist versus AI generated is defined as the following per Amazon's own guideline and content rules:
AI-generated: We define AI-generated content as text, images, or translations created by an AI-based tool. If you used an AI-based tool to create the actual content (whether text, images, or translations), it is considered "AI-generated," even if you applied substantial edits afterwards.
AI-assisted: If you created the content yourself, and used AI-based tools to edit, refine, error-check, or otherwise improve that content (whether text or images), then it is considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” Similarly, if you used an AI-based tool to brainstorm and generate ideas, but ultimately created the text or images yourself, this is also considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” It is not necessary to inform us of the use of such tools or processes.
To reiterate, Dragonblade ONLY uses AI Assist - manipulated by human people, controlled by humans. In summation, AI-assisted methods use artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance a process, while AI-generated content is created by AI. Nothing Dragonblade has is AI-Generated and this can be proven.
I will also point out that AI Assist includes predictive text in social media, editing features in Word, and programs like ProWriting Aid, as well as Photoshop plug-ins, among other things. It is everywhere.
Again - this is not a black and white issue.
In closing, I will also state, for the record, that only about 2% of Dragonblade covers have ever used AI Assist. The other 98% are done by a cover artist who does not use AI.
We are having a hard time aligning what you said to us in your original email, your additional comments here, and the reality of Dragonblade’s recently published covers. Adding “assisted” to AI doesn’t negate that AI engines - fed with stolen artwork - are being used. Whether you are feeding a photo into Midjourney or writing a prompt for Firefly, you are using a bank of stolen artwork to create a new composite. Creating heads from composites of other images, placing a tree or umbrella, as you mention, are examples of generative AI use that we would not support, unless those images are drawn by a human or cut in using licensed images. At the end of the day, our ethical concern is with the use of AI engines to build new and composite images. The use of generative AI engines is, in itself, a means of profiting from the unpaid and unlicensed production of innumerable human artists’ whose work was scraped from the internet to build these engines.
We were very clear in our intent in each of our emails to you, and our response here should certainly come as no surprise. Dragonblade’s prevarication in AI use makes it impossible for us to know author to author or cover to cover the extent to which AI engines were used. No one in this conversation is equating Microsoft Paint with Photoshop’s integrated AI, and we are not engaging in arguments that create false equivalencies between functions like predictive text and engines like Midjourney. Should Dragonblade take a clear stance on AI use, we would be glad to reconsider our current position, but at this time, how you are engaging with AI does not align with our intention for RU’s community.
As a big romance lover, I think that “GenAI” should not be used to create art or write content—it should only be used to foster the human mind. GenAI “generates,” not “creates,” content by drawing on the vast repository of human knowledge available on the internet. Having worked in the information and technology sector for over 30 years, I agree with you on this matter, and your stance is defendable.
That being said, GenAI is not the same as Assisted AI, and the two should not be confused. Instead of explaining the differences and applications to your readers, I suggest they simply Google it—something you might have done before writing this thirsty hit piece on Dragonblade. While you make a good point about not using GenAI, it’s clear you lack an understanding of Assisted AI. It seems like you’re trying to gain traction for this webpage by slandering a reputable company. Well, it did get me here… lol.
AI Assistants are to Generative AI what Alexa is to ChatGPT—there’s no real comparison. And “Romancelandia Uni,” whoever you are, you come across as fishy. I think you should stop spreading misinformation and find a safe place to reflect.
Before you make another post, please do yourself a favor and ask Google about the difference between AI Assistants and Generative AI. AI is an umbrella term for all intelligent computer operations. Generative AI focuses on creative content production, while AI Assistants are designed for interactive user assistance.
In closing, no one should use GenAI for any forward-facing custom content—it’s just unconscionable. Using technology to help with your own ideas and to act as a personal assistant, I think we’re all guilty of that to some extent, wouldn’t you say? If you don’t agree with that statement, then stop using spell check and stop asking your phone for directions or to set reminders. More awareness needs to be shed on the role of AI Assistants vs. Generative AI.
We refer back to the email we received in response to our original query, that confirmed AI may be used for elements like "hair, umbrellas, trees." Once again, if an integrated Photoshop tool, like Firefly (which is very transparently genAI) or an external engine is used to create elements that are then incorporated into the design, we do not want to platform that work. We agree that there are many AI applications that are not generative, but that's not what we're taking issue with, and Dragonblade's prevarication on this point is concerning for us. We don't believe that Dragonblade is producing "fully generated AI covers" and never claimed to. We were told by Dragonblade leadership that they may choose to incorporate AI imagery into its designs and that they consider the final product "AI-assisted." We get to choose which books we platform, and we have chosen not to platform those that incorporate AI elements like these.
I find this an egregious and slanderous round of bogus accusations. I’m, frankly, stunned at your brazenous and willingness to open yourself and your business to such liability.
I am the author of more than 40 Historical Romances as well as the Past-President of Novelist Inc (NINC). I’m considered a thought-leader in indie publishing. I’m also an author who’s worked with Kathryn Le Veque and Dragonblade along with the artists you are defaming.
You’ve targeted a woman-owned small business that has enabled more than two hundred women authors to build careers in this industry. This is the antithesis of the spirit of Romancelandia–a term you have usurped for your commercial purposes.
Kathryn does not allow AI-generated content or art. Flat out. Period. Full stop.
Her authors can opt out of AI-assisted art. Since AI-generated images aren’t even a possibility, there’s nothing to opt-out of.
I’ve worked with the artists she uses. I will publicly and personally vouch for them as creatives who do not use AI-generated images. They use their own stock images or licensed images and use the same artistic techniques used by artists across numerous industries.
This allegation is not only harmful to Dragonblade, but also the artists she contracts and the authors you are implicitly accusing. You have lit torches and grabbed pitchforks and are pointing them at people who have done no harm.
I am confident you cannot provide proof of your allegations. But if you are so certain you can, please upload screenshots of the allegedly AI-generated covers run through such programs as Illuminarty, Content at Scale, or another reputable image detector and include the results.
You appear to conflate AI-generated art, AI-assisted art, and the painted style that has been popular in Historical Romance for the past five years (well before easy access to AI-generated images became publicly available) and reflects the nostalgia for the bodice ripper covers of yore. You also clearly misunderstand the nuances of AI-generated and AI-assisted art, painting them with the same brush on a murky canvas.
I strongly suggest you reconsider this course of action and your public witchhunt. I cannot see a positive outcome when you besmirch the professional name of one of the two leading small-house Historical Romance publishers along with all the authors who write for this imprint and the artists whose reputations and livelihood you so callously trash. I suspect you would not be so rabid about pointing out alleged AI use if we discussed its use among the major New York publishers when they have a cadre of four-figure an hour lawyers.
This is so utterly disappointing to see. To those of you reading this stack, I truly hope you don’t accept these unfounded and unproven accusations. If you do, I guarantee you will miss some of the most incredible period romances on the market. As an author, and a colleague and friend of many Dragonblade authors, the unfairness of this truly saddens me. No one associated with Dragonblade deserves to be maligned or have their livelihood threatened by gossip and conspiracy theories.
The first thing we did was run covers through an AI detector - this is what prompted us to contact Dragonblade directly. Substack doesn't allow image attachment in the comment thread, but a few sample results follow, and you can certainly run them through yourself. We used Sight Engine for December releases, but in applying to a broader sample, Illuminarty provided similar results. Sara Adrien's December release, The Scent of Intuition, came back as 99% likelihood for genAI via Sight Engine's AI detector (with 98% likelihood for Midjourney), and using Illuminarty, The Skull and the Lute, by Leslie Vollard, came back as 88.3% likelihood AI, The Cornish Widow, by Fil Reid, came back as 62.4% likelihood AI, and To Trust a Duke, by Alexa Aston came back 85.6% likelihood AI. Had multiple covers not come through AI detectors with high probabilities of AI, we wouldn't have reached out to Dragonblade in the first place.
I will not engage in a back and forth beyond saying that this is utterly inaccurate. I know the artist who made those covers. I know unequivocally they do not use generative AI. You continue to flagrantly refuse to understand the difference between generative and assisted AI. It makes you appear ill equipped to make arguments on this topic. Instead, it makes you look like a dogmatic evangelist of misinformation.
And while those are some of the better identifiers, they are not 100% guaranteed, just like running text through an identifier isn't 100% accurate. I have written all my words and have run my text through to see what it would say. I've been told someone else (something else) generated it. Nope. Not at all. I love writing too much to skip the writing part of creating a book. That is why is says a LIKELIHOOD not absolute.
Since you have no way to show your "proof," they remain accusations rather than fact. As such, I still think this is hardly a prudent course of business. Attacking a woman-owned business and women authorpreneurs is a poor look for a brand that supposedly supports Romance, which is a woman dominatated genre.
For the sake of fairness, run books from the NYC Big 5 and their imprints to see what they come back as. Then make public accusations about the illegitimacy of those covers. Defame the publishers, the artists, and the authors. I'm certain it will be well received by their four figures an hour lawyers.
I don’t think this is a fair take on their position. No one has pitchforks or torches. RU is led by two people on instagram/Substack celebrating HistRom fairly and inclusively and they have done a lot of wonderful things for all of the talent involved in the genre, from authors to editors to cover artists. They took a position on AI and are sticking with it. It’s clear they were reluctant to do this and I think it’s great they explained why. There’s no need to make allegations of slander.
This is misinformation. They even doubled down by stating, “Adding ‘assisted’ to AI doesn’t negate that AI engines - fed with stolen artwork - are being used.” This statement perpetuates falsehoods and is entirely misleading. It certainly doesn’t seem to me that they are “celebrating HistRom fairly and inclusively.” You may also want to fact-check anything else they have posted. I suggest googling “AI Assistants vs. Generative AI” for more accurate information.
I think if you had simply said that you would not platform books with covers made using AI technology, or authors who used AI in their promotion, or publishers who did not have a clear policy against AI, etc. you would have gotten less pushback. Your decision to name a specific historical romance publisher is what made this feel like a "hit piece" to some Dragonblade authors.
Is there a reason why you singled out Dragonblade in this announcement? Is it the only small press publishing historical romance with covers made using assistive AI?
Edited to add a disclaimer: I am a Dragonblade author, so I have a vested (financial) interest in this conversation.
We specifically mention Dragonblade because in compiling round-ups of new HR releases, it is the only publisher that had multiple covers come through AI detectors with a high probability of AI. In good faith, we reached out to them directly, and unfortunately, don't feel comfortable with the definition of "AI-assisted art" that they are currently using.
I applaud this! Thank you for being so clear and taking such a firm stance.
Thank you for this!
👏👏👏
I'm glad that you mention this, thank you. I saw several of their covers updated on my kindle and was very disappointed.
I suggest googling “AI Assistants vs. Generative AI” for more accurate information.
This explains some of the Dragonblade covers, okay. Woof, it is getting harder to spot. Fully support and APPLAUD this.
I suggest googling “AI Assistants vs. Generative AI” for more accurate information.
“AI-assisted” still includes AI-generated elements, which no one actually needs to be using. If you have genuine artists involved, why would they need to be generating any part of the artwork? And I can only assume this is how you end up with a historical romance novel with floral-patterned rainboots on the cover, by the way.
From your comment, it seems either you didn’t look it up or misunderstood what you read. We should also avoid making assumptions when making statements. For example, floral-patterned rainboots on a cover can be created using Photoshop. AI utilizes trained artificial neural networks to generate photos, and yes, Photoshop also uses trained artificial neural networks to enhance and create images!
RU’s position is specific to AI, not photoshop. Accusing people of misunderstanding or not researching isn’t a fair way to make an argument.
Yes, I’ve been using Photoshop since the 90s. And the way that I use it hasn’t changed that much since then. I don’t use their AI features, so no, that isn’t how it works at all.
Hello, ladies - I respect your decision when it comes to taking a stance against AI, but unfortunately, it's not a black and white issue. Please allow me to post my response to you, verbatim, so anyone reading your post will have the entire picture:
(beginning of response)
The sad truth is that AI is here to stay. As I’m sure you realize, it’s not going anywhere. We can only mitigate it the best way we can. While we forbid our cover artists to use fully AI Generated covers, we leave it up to the authors whether or not they want to allow AI-assist – meaning elements like hair or an umbrella or a tree on the cover may be AI. But only if the authors want it. I will stress this again – ONLY if they want it. It is their choice. Some of our authors have no problem with AI assist. Some do. This is from our contracts:
Author has the right to opt out of AI-Assisted art, but this does not include the use of commonly used tools for artwork creation by human artist that could be considered early generation AI (including but not limited to Photoshop, Paint, etc).
So, they have a clear choice to use AI assist or not. As you know, AI as a whole has many nuances. It’s not a straight-forward issue. We do not permit AI narration on our audiobooks, nor do we permit AI generated book text of any kind. While AI may have its place, we feel that it does not have any place when it replaces what should be human-generated. That is Dragonblade’s stance.
Personally, as an author, Dragonblade does not publish my work. It is published under Kathryn Le Veque Novels and my situation is slightly different. I work with a cover artist who is also a photographer and she uses her own images, taken from cover models she has hired and paid for, to train her personally-used AI. This is a definition of ‘ethical AI’. She doesn’t use anything, or anyone, that has not been paid for and properly licensed. Because she has done almost 500 covers for me (boxed sets included), we have long since run out of cover model faces to use and re-use, so some of my later covers have faces or heads that have been generated from her personally trained AI program. Again – any images used are those she owns and has personally taken. This includes landscapes, chairs, trees, etc, as well. I have been with her for over 10 years and have the licenses, or proof that the images are hers, of everything she has used in generating AI-assist on any of my covers.
I hope this clarifies Dragonblade’s stance on AI and how we (very sparingly and only with author permission) use it. Though we have never, ever used a fully generated AI cover, our main cover artist is quite talented and she paints many of our covers, giving them an ethereal quality. But absolutely no fully-generated AI.
(end of post)
To be clear, Dragonblade absolutely do NOT use generative AI. We use AI assist created by HUMAN PEOPLE. AI Assist versus AI generated is defined as the following per Amazon's own guideline and content rules:
AI-generated: We define AI-generated content as text, images, or translations created by an AI-based tool. If you used an AI-based tool to create the actual content (whether text, images, or translations), it is considered "AI-generated," even if you applied substantial edits afterwards.
AI-assisted: If you created the content yourself, and used AI-based tools to edit, refine, error-check, or otherwise improve that content (whether text or images), then it is considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” Similarly, if you used an AI-based tool to brainstorm and generate ideas, but ultimately created the text or images yourself, this is also considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” It is not necessary to inform us of the use of such tools or processes.
To reiterate, Dragonblade ONLY uses AI Assist - manipulated by human people, controlled by humans. In summation, AI-assisted methods use artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance a process, while AI-generated content is created by AI. Nothing Dragonblade has is AI-Generated and this can be proven.
I will also point out that AI Assist includes predictive text in social media, editing features in Word, and programs like ProWriting Aid, as well as Photoshop plug-ins, among other things. It is everywhere.
Again - this is not a black and white issue.
In closing, I will also state, for the record, that only about 2% of Dragonblade covers have ever used AI Assist. The other 98% are done by a cover artist who does not use AI.
I am happy to answer further questions.
We are having a hard time aligning what you said to us in your original email, your additional comments here, and the reality of Dragonblade’s recently published covers. Adding “assisted” to AI doesn’t negate that AI engines - fed with stolen artwork - are being used. Whether you are feeding a photo into Midjourney or writing a prompt for Firefly, you are using a bank of stolen artwork to create a new composite. Creating heads from composites of other images, placing a tree or umbrella, as you mention, are examples of generative AI use that we would not support, unless those images are drawn by a human or cut in using licensed images. At the end of the day, our ethical concern is with the use of AI engines to build new and composite images. The use of generative AI engines is, in itself, a means of profiting from the unpaid and unlicensed production of innumerable human artists’ whose work was scraped from the internet to build these engines.
We were very clear in our intent in each of our emails to you, and our response here should certainly come as no surprise. Dragonblade’s prevarication in AI use makes it impossible for us to know author to author or cover to cover the extent to which AI engines were used. No one in this conversation is equating Microsoft Paint with Photoshop’s integrated AI, and we are not engaging in arguments that create false equivalencies between functions like predictive text and engines like Midjourney. Should Dragonblade take a clear stance on AI use, we would be glad to reconsider our current position, but at this time, how you are engaging with AI does not align with our intention for RU’s community.
As a big romance lover, I think that “GenAI” should not be used to create art or write content—it should only be used to foster the human mind. GenAI “generates,” not “creates,” content by drawing on the vast repository of human knowledge available on the internet. Having worked in the information and technology sector for over 30 years, I agree with you on this matter, and your stance is defendable.
That being said, GenAI is not the same as Assisted AI, and the two should not be confused. Instead of explaining the differences and applications to your readers, I suggest they simply Google it—something you might have done before writing this thirsty hit piece on Dragonblade. While you make a good point about not using GenAI, it’s clear you lack an understanding of Assisted AI. It seems like you’re trying to gain traction for this webpage by slandering a reputable company. Well, it did get me here… lol.
AI Assistants are to Generative AI what Alexa is to ChatGPT—there’s no real comparison. And “Romancelandia Uni,” whoever you are, you come across as fishy. I think you should stop spreading misinformation and find a safe place to reflect.
Before you make another post, please do yourself a favor and ask Google about the difference between AI Assistants and Generative AI. AI is an umbrella term for all intelligent computer operations. Generative AI focuses on creative content production, while AI Assistants are designed for interactive user assistance.
In closing, no one should use GenAI for any forward-facing custom content—it’s just unconscionable. Using technology to help with your own ideas and to act as a personal assistant, I think we’re all guilty of that to some extent, wouldn’t you say? If you don’t agree with that statement, then stop using spell check and stop asking your phone for directions or to set reminders. More awareness needs to be shed on the role of AI Assistants vs. Generative AI.
We refer back to the email we received in response to our original query, that confirmed AI may be used for elements like "hair, umbrellas, trees." Once again, if an integrated Photoshop tool, like Firefly (which is very transparently genAI) or an external engine is used to create elements that are then incorporated into the design, we do not want to platform that work. We agree that there are many AI applications that are not generative, but that's not what we're taking issue with, and Dragonblade's prevarication on this point is concerning for us. We don't believe that Dragonblade is producing "fully generated AI covers" and never claimed to. We were told by Dragonblade leadership that they may choose to incorporate AI imagery into its designs and that they consider the final product "AI-assisted." We get to choose which books we platform, and we have chosen not to platform those that incorporate AI elements like these.
I find this an egregious and slanderous round of bogus accusations. I’m, frankly, stunned at your brazenous and willingness to open yourself and your business to such liability.
I am the author of more than 40 Historical Romances as well as the Past-President of Novelist Inc (NINC). I’m considered a thought-leader in indie publishing. I’m also an author who’s worked with Kathryn Le Veque and Dragonblade along with the artists you are defaming.
You’ve targeted a woman-owned small business that has enabled more than two hundred women authors to build careers in this industry. This is the antithesis of the spirit of Romancelandia–a term you have usurped for your commercial purposes.
Kathryn does not allow AI-generated content or art. Flat out. Period. Full stop.
Her authors can opt out of AI-assisted art. Since AI-generated images aren’t even a possibility, there’s nothing to opt-out of.
I’ve worked with the artists she uses. I will publicly and personally vouch for them as creatives who do not use AI-generated images. They use their own stock images or licensed images and use the same artistic techniques used by artists across numerous industries.
This allegation is not only harmful to Dragonblade, but also the artists she contracts and the authors you are implicitly accusing. You have lit torches and grabbed pitchforks and are pointing them at people who have done no harm.
I am confident you cannot provide proof of your allegations. But if you are so certain you can, please upload screenshots of the allegedly AI-generated covers run through such programs as Illuminarty, Content at Scale, or another reputable image detector and include the results.
You appear to conflate AI-generated art, AI-assisted art, and the painted style that has been popular in Historical Romance for the past five years (well before easy access to AI-generated images became publicly available) and reflects the nostalgia for the bodice ripper covers of yore. You also clearly misunderstand the nuances of AI-generated and AI-assisted art, painting them with the same brush on a murky canvas.
I strongly suggest you reconsider this course of action and your public witchhunt. I cannot see a positive outcome when you besmirch the professional name of one of the two leading small-house Historical Romance publishers along with all the authors who write for this imprint and the artists whose reputations and livelihood you so callously trash. I suspect you would not be so rabid about pointing out alleged AI use if we discussed its use among the major New York publishers when they have a cadre of four-figure an hour lawyers.
This is so utterly disappointing to see. To those of you reading this stack, I truly hope you don’t accept these unfounded and unproven accusations. If you do, I guarantee you will miss some of the most incredible period romances on the market. As an author, and a colleague and friend of many Dragonblade authors, the unfairness of this truly saddens me. No one associated with Dragonblade deserves to be maligned or have their livelihood threatened by gossip and conspiracy theories.
The first thing we did was run covers through an AI detector - this is what prompted us to contact Dragonblade directly. Substack doesn't allow image attachment in the comment thread, but a few sample results follow, and you can certainly run them through yourself. We used Sight Engine for December releases, but in applying to a broader sample, Illuminarty provided similar results. Sara Adrien's December release, The Scent of Intuition, came back as 99% likelihood for genAI via Sight Engine's AI detector (with 98% likelihood for Midjourney), and using Illuminarty, The Skull and the Lute, by Leslie Vollard, came back as 88.3% likelihood AI, The Cornish Widow, by Fil Reid, came back as 62.4% likelihood AI, and To Trust a Duke, by Alexa Aston came back 85.6% likelihood AI. Had multiple covers not come through AI detectors with high probabilities of AI, we wouldn't have reached out to Dragonblade in the first place.
I will not engage in a back and forth beyond saying that this is utterly inaccurate. I know the artist who made those covers. I know unequivocally they do not use generative AI. You continue to flagrantly refuse to understand the difference between generative and assisted AI. It makes you appear ill equipped to make arguments on this topic. Instead, it makes you look like a dogmatic evangelist of misinformation.
And while those are some of the better identifiers, they are not 100% guaranteed, just like running text through an identifier isn't 100% accurate. I have written all my words and have run my text through to see what it would say. I've been told someone else (something else) generated it. Nope. Not at all. I love writing too much to skip the writing part of creating a book. That is why is says a LIKELIHOOD not absolute.
Since you have no way to show your "proof," they remain accusations rather than fact. As such, I still think this is hardly a prudent course of business. Attacking a woman-owned business and women authorpreneurs is a poor look for a brand that supposedly supports Romance, which is a woman dominatated genre.
For the sake of fairness, run books from the NYC Big 5 and their imprints to see what they come back as. Then make public accusations about the illegitimacy of those covers. Defame the publishers, the artists, and the authors. I'm certain it will be well received by their four figures an hour lawyers.
I don’t think this is a fair take on their position. No one has pitchforks or torches. RU is led by two people on instagram/Substack celebrating HistRom fairly and inclusively and they have done a lot of wonderful things for all of the talent involved in the genre, from authors to editors to cover artists. They took a position on AI and are sticking with it. It’s clear they were reluctant to do this and I think it’s great they explained why. There’s no need to make allegations of slander.
This is misinformation. They even doubled down by stating, “Adding ‘assisted’ to AI doesn’t negate that AI engines - fed with stolen artwork - are being used.” This statement perpetuates falsehoods and is entirely misleading. It certainly doesn’t seem to me that they are “celebrating HistRom fairly and inclusively.” You may also want to fact-check anything else they have posted. I suggest googling “AI Assistants vs. Generative AI” for more accurate information.
Thanks for the suggestion. I have googled and fact checked. It’s not misinformation. Their position is no AI.
I think if you had simply said that you would not platform books with covers made using AI technology, or authors who used AI in their promotion, or publishers who did not have a clear policy against AI, etc. you would have gotten less pushback. Your decision to name a specific historical romance publisher is what made this feel like a "hit piece" to some Dragonblade authors.
Is there a reason why you singled out Dragonblade in this announcement? Is it the only small press publishing historical romance with covers made using assistive AI?
Edited to add a disclaimer: I am a Dragonblade author, so I have a vested (financial) interest in this conversation.
We specifically mention Dragonblade because in compiling round-ups of new HR releases, it is the only publisher that had multiple covers come through AI detectors with a high probability of AI. In good faith, we reached out to them directly, and unfortunately, don't feel comfortable with the definition of "AI-assisted art" that they are currently using.