AI vs. Movable Type: Which constitutes the greater crime?

OK, so I got you to start reading this missive with a catchy title, but I see a parallel, and I have a point to make.

Johannes Gutenberg, around 1450, invented a system for printing books that used a couple of emerging technologies, replacing what had been the exclusive task of monks and scribes. Books had been rare and expensive. Suddenly, they were cheap and available. Also, there were pamphlets and broadsides.

In 1517, according to tradition, Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg. It was a local act of dissent. There had been local acts of dissent to the Catholic Church before, but the Ninety-five Theses was reprinted and distributed, getting the word out.

Then Martin Luther upped and translated the Bible into the German vernacular! What was he thinking? Giving the common people access to the word of God without the necessary filter of the Catholic Church? What did that get us? The Thirty Years’ War, for one; Protestant and Catholic princes battled each other, resulting in the deaths of a third of the German population.

Considering this single example, was it worth the cost of having movable type? Should we not, at long last, return to the less inflammatory system and limit knowledge to those who do not have the training to understand?

OK, I hope you see the exaggerations I’ve made for this fallacious argument. While Gutenberg’s improvements were significant, they were only one factor in an evolving European culture moving toward what historians have labeled the Enlightenment.

I am making a comparison between then and now. AI is an emerging technology introduced into a world of many moving parts. Interestingly, movable type is a technology no longer used, replaced by other, more inexpensive digital methods.

I see two options:

• Ignore AI. Do not use it in any of its forms, which is not to be on the internet; off the grid. Welcome to the world of Luddites.
• Accept AI. As with the effect of movable type, it is already established. There is no going back.

I am in full agreement with Linda Caroll , who writes on Substack, when she says we need clarity. If an item has used AI, which is derivative, that act must be acknowledged as such. In my books, I state the use of AI in the cover design. (Oh, check out my new covers for A Vacant Throne and Sword of Trueterrathat my son created with AI. He likened the experience to being an art director.)

In addition, the courts have said derivative content cannot be copyrighted. Does that open up a whole new consideration? Can we lean on the writings of great authors and yet profit from them when we ask for paid subscribers? If I use AI to simply correct my punctuation, am I being derivative? AI is, ultimately, derivative.

What I am suggesting is that we have been here before but continue to struggle. We would be wise to consider the possible consequences, given our experience. What we need to do is use AI and not let AI use us. AI would lead us towards the common denominator. We ought to aim to be unique. This, in my mind, is the current challenge. The consequence could be profound.