Currently Seeking Representation

Are you are looking for a productive, easy to work with writer to publish or to represent?

Would like to be part of a small team that will always pick up your calls?

Would you like to make someone elses life better while allowing space for the same thing to happen to you?

If so...

We might be the right fit.

Please let me know on the Contact Me Page
. 

A statement on the use of AI

As a lifelong reader and now a majority of life writer of science fiction, I am keenly interested in the use of AI in both daily life and in my work. This eager curiosity with my formal education in ethics, perhaps, causes more than an appropriate amount of distraction from the work that I really want to do, which is writing. I have always been an early adopter of technology. I remember the excitement in the early 80s when my mother brought home an on loan Televideo TS-803 from her work. I diligently read the manual for it and the included WordStar software.

It was ^PBVERY^PB exciting.

This was not long after I started my long-standing relationship with the works of Robert Heinlein. I am reminded of the scene in Stranger in a Strange Land in chapter 10 where Jubal Harshaw is lounging by the pool writing. I think in a bit of self satire, Heinlein says:

“Harshaw ...claimed that his method of literary composition was to hook his gonads in parallel with his thalamus and disconnect his cerebrum entirely; his habits lent some credibility to the theory.”

He later goes on to dictate the story to one of my favorite characters, Anne. Anne is part of the rotating secretary pool for Harshaw but is also a Fair Witness, which is his world’s version of a Notary/Judge. She has been trained for perfect recall of unbiased observations. Anne, because of her training, can accept dictation from Harshaw without error. A human version, if you will, of the computing power I explored as a kid on that old CP/M box my mother brought home.

Heinlein in other works makes the assistants “silicone people” with Mycroft “Mike” Holmes in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Gay Deceiver in The Number of the Beast and Pallas Athene (Athena) and Minerva, the planet supervisory computers in Time Enough for Love. The imprint on my young mind is further evidenced as I type these words on a laptop that identifies to the network as Athena. I will shortly back the data up to a larger, more capable computer that calls herself Minerva. Which sets the stage for the discussion and disclosure below.

On the use of AI in writing

The phrase “AI will not replace you, but the person using AI will” seems a clarion call for those “defending” AI. (I feel about as foolish typing that as I would “defending” the use of Clovis points, an atlatl, a steam engine, the internal combustion engine, air travel, modern medicine, global networks, a stable food supply, or … you get the idea.)

I don’t know if I agree with that statement, I do believe AI will have as much impact on the way we do work as any of those other tools I mentioned above. The simple fact to me is it just is. AI exists as a tool and is positioned to make human life much better. Like Harshaw, I would like to enhance my life with more time by the pool. I believe I should make the best ethical use of whatever tools I can to get that time. To believe anything else would deny a basic human birthright. No sane person would tell a surgeon to go back to the days before Joseph Lister. Nobody would recommend ether and fishing around for an inflamed appendix with a spoon over using robot assisted surgery. It is about risk. I know life and death decisions require a different metric, but the basic principle of ethical access to tools remains.

I made a request with ChatGPT.

“Help me write an author statement of ethics for using AI only as an assistant for research and for copy editing.”

Here was the response.

Author Statement of Ethics on AI Use

As a writer, I recognize the profound impact of artificial intelligence on the creative and research landscape. While AI offers powerful tools to assist in various aspects of the writing process, I remain committed to preserving the integrity, originality, and authenticity of my work.

Scope of AI Use

I use AI exclusively as an assistant in the following capacities:

1. Research Support – AI helps in gathering, summarizing, and organizing information, ensuring efficiency in sourcing credible material while maintaining critical analysis and intellectual independence.
2. Copyediting and Proofreading – AI assists in refining grammar, style, and clarity without altering the core voice, message, or creative intent of my work.

Limitations and Ethical Boundaries

• No AI-Generated Writing – AI is never used to generate original content, ideas, or narratives on my behalf. Every word in my published work is my own.
• No Fact Generation Without Verification – AI-retrieved information is cross-checked with reliable sources to prevent the spread of misinformation.
• No AI-Driven Creativity Replacement – My unique voice, perspective, and creative instincts remain at the heart of my writing. AI is a tool, not a co-author.
• Transparency in Use – If AI influences a work beyond minor edits, I will disclose its role where necessary to uphold ethical transparency.

By adhering to these principles, I ensure that my work remains a product of human creativity, thought, and ethical responsibility, with AI serving only as a supporting tool, never a substitute for authentic authorship.

ChatGPT wrote this, none of these words are mine, but I believe that the words suggest a sound path forward. Claiming this as my own work would certainly be, by the “No AI-Generated Writing” clause, unethical. It does, however, seem a good statement, and one to which I commit.

I next asked ChatGPT to “please provide a list of all sources used for this work.”

The response:

This author statement of ethics is an original piece, crafted based on ethical considerations commonly discussed in the writing and publishing communities. However, if you’d like references to support these principles, you might find the following sources useful:

1. The Author’s Guild – AI and Writers’ Rights
2. Discusses the ethical implications of AI in writing and the importance of maintaining human authorship.
3. Website
4. The Society of Authors – AI and Creative Integrity
5. Outlines concerns regarding AI’s role in publishing and maintaining originality in creative work.
6. Website
7. MIT Technology Review – AI in Writing: Ethical Considerations
8. Explores how AI affects creativity and the ethical use of AI-generated content.
9. Website
10. Modern Language Association (MLA) – Guidelines on AI and Research
11. Provides insights on ethical AI use in academic and creative writing.
12. Website
13. OpenAI & Responsible AI Use Policies
14. Addresses the responsible use of AI in content creation, emphasizing human oversight.
15. Website

Since this statement is original and based on widely accepted ethical guidelines, there are no direct sources cited within the text. However, if you need a version with formal references or citations, I can include them. Let me know how you'd like to proceed!

Fact is, I don’t know how I would like to proceed. I do know that the use of tools, as early hominins learned,  provides an extreme advantage. I have lived long enough to know that what we think is cool now likely won’t be in the future.

I do solemnly swear that I write my own work based on my own ideas. I use AI sometimes as a tool (just like WordStar). I would never pass off AI generated words as my own work.

-d

A stirring example

I would save an hour of work asking for “seven common names from 1920 immigrant populations”. Or as revised by ChatGPT: "List seven common first and last names for both men and women from New York's immigrant communities in 1920. Include names from Italian, Jewish, Irish, Russian, Polish, and German backgrounds, ensuring the surnames are historically and culturally accurate for each group."

The results:

1. Male Names
2. Giovanni Russo (Italian)
3. Moishe Katz (Jewish/Yiddish, often anglicized to Morris)
4. Patrick O'Connor (Irish)
5. Dmitri Petrov (Russian/Eastern European)
6. Salvatore Esposito (Italian)
7. Jakub Kowalski (Polish, often changed to Jacob or James)
8. Hans Schneider (German)
9. Female Names
10. Maria Romano (Italian)
11. Chana Goldberg (Jewish/Yiddish, often anglicized to Hannah or Anne)
12. Bridget Murphy (Irish)
13. Tatiana Ivanova (Russian/Eastern European)
14. Carmela DeLuca (Italian)
15. Zofia Nowak (Polish, often changed to Sophia)
16. Greta Müller (German)

Oh, what if Zofia Nowak met Giovanni Russo just home from The Great War at a diner in Cleveland.

The young woman had a sadness about her. Perhaps it was the color of the handstitched dress she wore, or the faint line of mascara that disappeared as it fell to the corner of her mouth. Perhaps it was the way she looked down at the corn beef on rye.

“I am certain it won’t eat itself,” a young man in uniform said, handing her a napkin.

“I am Giovanni, but my friends, at least those who will still talk to me, call me Jonny.”

She took the napkin, wiped a tear, and spoke softly.

“Sophie,” she said.

I am pressed to see how this is different from the perl script I wrote over a decade ago to pull first and last names from downloaded census data. Maybe I should ask Minerva.

$genname -m 7 -f 7

...

7 Female Name(s)
1: LAI DURYEE
2: SHARMAINE ALVINO
3: EMOGENE DISHAW
4: ASUNCION KIELICH
5: MAURINE BUMBACA
6: MICA BILLOT
7: BRYANNA DIONNE 

7 Male Name(s)
1: JOHNIE BITONTI
2: LON BOTTIN
3: ADRIAN RADZIWON
4: CLAY THORP
5: JULIUS KHOUNBORINE
6: WELDON ZAHRADKA
7: ARMANDO MORA

Contextually ChatGPT wins, I think