Literary guardrails in an AI world

Ken Gray, with materials from CBC News, Apr 12, 2026 Jenna Benchetrit explores AI implications for writers.

“Hi; my name is Ken.”

“Hi Ken.”

“I occasionally use AI.”

“Wow; did you make that up yourself Ken? Or did AI help? And if it did, how did AI help you?”

“No I did not use AI this time. In fact I try to avoid AI at every opportunity.”

“What’s the matter with you? You some kind of Luddite or somethin’?”

“Okay, I occasionally use it photographically. And now with a couple of writing projects on the go I use it to assist with editing and transcription.”

“Then you use AI. That’s a slippery slope Ken. We know of authors whose books have been withdrawn from publication once their use of AI was  discovered.”

“I’ve heard the same thing, sadly. I gotta ask, however, what does ‘use of AI’ look like?”

“Well you either use it, or you don’t. Simple as that.”

“No, I don’t think it’s that simple. Didn’t they say the same thing when spell-check came out? Or speech to text technology. Then they said ‘check against delivery.’ Now they say ‘human produced’ or something similar.”

There is now a certification developed by the Society of Authors, a U.K. trade union which operates on an honour code system: If you’re an author who wants to declare that your book was written without any assistance from artificial intelligence, this is one way of doing so.

The label is nothing if not timely. Weeks ago, the North American publishing industry was rocked when a New York Times story accused horror writer Mia Ballard of using generative artificial intelligence to write her novel Shy Girl.

The cover of Shy Girl, a novel by Mia Ballard that was originally self-published. After gaining popularity, the book was picked up by a publisher but then cancelled after a New York Times report accused Ballard of using generative AI while writing it.

Now I haven’t read the book myself. Still slogging through Lonesome Dove; great book, but long. Surely there’s a difference between the total generation of a book or story, where the story is generated, seemingly from scratch, in sharp contrast to an author-generated story which is assisted only in the editing or transcription process.

In my own writing I use AI only to help with converting audio recordings to text records. I will have the software transcribe the recording and then apply a level called “light edit,” and that’s all. Great improvement. Believe me, I have no shortage of original and creative ideas and ways of developing themes and settings. I don’t need any help with content development. I do need help however with transcription. The result is still more accurate than would be if I simply listened to the recording and typed it all out.

Concerning Shy Girl, the incident, which the accused author says has ruined her career, demonstrates the conundrum that literary professionals face as they comb through every pitch, query letter and manuscript lobbed their way: How do you separate the proverbial wheat from the AI-generated chaff, and what happens if you get it wrong?

So is there any agreement about the right way to use AI? I does not surprise me that response varies:

Kindle Direct Publishing, for example, asks writers in its content guidelines to declare any AI-generated text, photos or translations when publishing or republishing a book. AI-assisted works get a pass.

IngramSpark, another self-publishing tool, says on its website that it will remove any content generated by AI or “mass-produced processes,” but AI-assisted works aren’t mentioned.

Asked for response Chandler Supple, the San Francisco-based chief technology officer of River AI, a platform where writers can use AI to edit and proofread large-scale projects like books said:

“I don’t necessarily see it as AI is good, AI is bad. I think that AI is a tool that people can apply to their craft to produce better results, higher quality, faster rate of output. And if you’re doing it right, I don’t think that it degrades the creative nature of the work that you produce,” he explained.

In the end, writers create their own content or they don’t. Discerning readers may be able to spot imitations or mimicry. There are only so many Ian Fleming plots crying out for redevelopment.

Cecilia Lyra, a Toronto-based literary agent with Wendy Sherman Associates and co-host of popular podcast The Sh*t No One Tells You About Writing says she skeptical of “AI optimists” who think the technology can generate the same kind of work a human can: “How? Explain to me how. Explain to me how something that doesn’t feel can write great story.”

I think she’s right.

Visit the takenote.ca HOME page for a colourful display of hundreds of other blogs which may interest or inspire you