Why I Cannot Represent AI-Generated Work

It has its uses but not in fiction.

Every so often, an industry reaches a crossroads. Publishing is at one now. The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed how we search, how we work, and how we interact with information. I’ll be the first to say: AI has its uses. It can organize data at lightning speed, draft a press release, or summarize a dense academic paper in seconds. It can even serve as a brainstorming tool when you’re stuck staring at a blank page.

But here’s where I draw the line: AI has no place in creative novel writing. And because of that, I cannot represent anything created by AI.

Why This Matters

Novels are not simply words strung together. They are the product of lived experience, of memory, of observation, of emotional resonance. They are conversations between generations, built on culture, language, pain, joy, nuance, and humor. When a human writes, they bring their story, their voice, their perspective. AI, no matter how advanced, cannot replicate that. It can only remix what it has been fed.

An AI-written manuscript is essentially a collage, sometimes a clever one, but still a collage of other people’s work. It is derivative by design. That isn’t artistry. That isn’t authorship. And it certainly isn’t what literature is about.

The Perils for Publishing

If publishers were to embrace AI-generated novels, here’s what we risk:

• Devaluation of human creativity. When readers can’t distinguish between a novel written from the depths of a human life and one spun out by a machine, the unique labor of writers, their originality and life experiences, as well as creativity and imagination are undermined.

• Legal and ethical gray zones. Much of what AI produces is built on datasets scraped without permission. That means copyright infringement is not just possible but inevitable. And a current issue for publishers and authors.

• Reader trust. Readers don’t want to be tricked into thinking they’re holding the product of a human imagination when in reality they’re reading a machine’s pastiche.

• The effects of AI on the environment. AI can strain the environment through high energy and water use, but it can also help by optimizing energy, resources, and climate solutions. Balancing its costs and benefits is essential. HERE is an MIT piece on the effects of AI on the environment, if interested.

Publishing already operates in a precarious ecosystem, one that depends on cultivating authentic voices and connecting them with readers. Flooding the market with AI-generated texts would erode that delicate balance.

Agencies and publishers are all investing in AI detectors to avoid the embarrassment and possible legal actions of using AI by their clients/authors. Universities have been doing it for years to keep students authentic and original. I am in complete agreement that creativity should remain human in this regard. Just recently I received a ‘revised’ manuscript that was so blatantly run through AI it was shocking. The entire tone of the novel was different, and here is the disappointing part, it felt familiar and over done. It was absolutely not original. I could not find a way forward with that writer. They did not deny the use of AI and defended their choice, which is their right, but that does not make it okay for me. I want to represent writers who want to put in the work and not cut corners. I want authenticity and organic writing.

AI Has Its Place, But Not Here

Let me be clear: I’m not against AI in all contexts. There are powerful, exciting, and ethical uses for it, in translation assistance, in accessibility technology, in data analysis, even in marketing support. But novels? Stories meant to carry us through time and across experiences? That’s not where it belongs. I used AI to help organize my reference section for my PhD dissertation which would have taken me days to do on my own. And I’m grateful for it. But it was and organizational task, not a creative one. And I know writers will feed passages into AI to have it reworked when they are stuck, that too is okay. It’s not all horrible! I want to stress that.

Also, the use of AI for copy editing and proofreading is already in use in auto-correct and other places. As I said, it does have it’s uses which are extremely helpful but this is not at the creative level.

The future of publishing, at least the one I want to be part of, is human. I will stand by writers who craft their own words, who bleed into their pages, who wrestle with the blank screen and emerge with something no machine could ever replicate.

So, if you are querying me, know this: I am here to represent your voice, not an algorithm’s echo. One of the greatest joys is reading a story or passage and being blown away by the voice, the writing, the creativity and the brilliance. I want that human connection in the writing. And that will never change. I know I’m not alone in this thought as I’ve had many conversations with colleagues. The one take away, we want original not AI altered or generated work. Be real. Be authentic.