God-like in The Guardian

Really thrilled to have been commissioned by The Guardian to write a piece on the book – which they published today.

It explores the AI Transparency Statement that the book begins with – something that I felt I had to write as a declaration, as so many people were asking me if I’d used generative AI to write the book.

In short: no. But it’s not as simple as that, as there are so many ways that AI asks to ‘help’ when writing – and I’ve tried to explain how I’ve approached each one.

More importantly, it’s a reflection on the vital importance for people in creative practice of trust and transparency with their audiences. As I write in the piece:

When we invest in reading a book we are entering a trust relationship with the writer. That a small crew of tech bosses have squandered the Promethean act and freely given away the gift of language to machines profoundly undermines that historic trust.

I have no doubt that an AI will soon “write” a marvellous book – but should anyone care? There will be weak applause. Like a flawless, lab-grown diamond it will be artifice, but not art, a trick with minor value.

But in this new reality, it will be up to writers to establish trust in the provenance of their own gems by being transparent about their labour to mine them. Pretending that writing is too honourable a craft to worry about trust is, I believe, naive.

As I outline in my book, AI is – like the atomic bomb – a vastly powerful human creation that we have no choice now but to learn to survive alongside. Being open about what is in our arsenal is one small step to preventing a writing arms race that can only lead to distrust and division.


Thanks for all your support for the book. Some amazing podcast interviews coming out very shortly which I’m really excited to share.

Would be amazing if you were able to leave a review on Amazon or Goodreads.

If you’ve not picked up a copy yet, you can get one online here, or – even better – an exclusive signed copy direct from my fab local bookshop.



2 responses to “God-like in The Guardian”

  1. Hi Kester,

    many thanks for your article and suggestion for the AI statement! I think I am going to start using it for our startup, for example in reports, or customer support answers. I think customers appreciate a personal answer, and the quality of the answer will be better, while it keeps us listening to our customers and not only having their inquiries in a database.

    On the other side, I wonder nowadays who or how any text I read has been written. Is there a person on the other side? Has somebody proofread it for facts or might something slip into… Such an AI statement as you suggest makes a lot of sense. I would appreciate it.

    Just a question: You suggested four questions, should the order of questions 2 and 3 be changed? What about a number to simplify the statement? For example: 4, all four questions yes. 1, only correction with human acceptance.

  2. Thanks Andres – and look forward to hearing how that goes with use within your startup! Been busy with other work last few days so just getting back to the blog.
    For me, the order was because the second point (2 – happy to use numbering!) is about an automation… and 3 is about a suggestion that then requires human response, so – to me – seemed subsequent. But it’s not hard and fast. Please feel free to use, and cite. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *