Friday, June 19, 2026

So Some Social Media Rando Thinks You Write with AI...

 

Creator: nicoletaionescu, Credit: Getty Images

 

Recently, I saw fellow horror author S. Alessandro Martinez post on Facebook that someone accused him of using generative AI to write because his work had perfect grammar.



Alessandro and I after the Bram Stoker Awards Banquet, 2026

 

(This is where you imagine me screaming Fuck! so long and loud that my house eventually collapses around me.) The Dark Lords save us from people on the Internet who think they know everything, when they really only know two things: jack and shit.

 

“Fuck off” is a perfectly reasonable response to these idiots, as is ignoring them (which is my preference; why give them the attention they crave?).

 

But what if editors and agents start asking us to prove we didn’t use AI to produce our writing?

 

I haven’t heard of anyone doing this yet, but it’s becoming common for agents and publishers to have writers sign “I did not use AI” statements in contracts. It’s not far-fetched to believe a day may come when the burden is on the writer to prove their work is 100% self-written.

 

Not long after my first daughter was born, I realized that if I were out in public with her and someone came up to me – another citizen, a cop, a federal agent – and demanded proof that I was my child’s father, I had nothing I could show them. No “parental license.” No wallet-sized duplicate birth certificate. There were no smartphones back then, so if I had any photos of the two of us together, they’d be small ones I could carry in my wallet. I’d have no video of the two of us together.

 

I feel a little like that when I consider how I would prove something I wrote really was something I wrote.

 

I plan to retire from my college teaching job in two years, and what I’d love to do (because of AI) is quiet quit, pretend AI doesn’t exist, and grade papers as if none are plagiarized until I can walk out the door with my full retirement package and never set foot inside a classroom again. But I guess I’m just too damn dedicated and conscientious. (Or too stupid and pigheaded.) So I asked my two summer semester classes how they could prove to an instructor that they wrote their work if asked. (I told them not to worry about using assistive AI, like various grammar and spellcheck programs.) Here are some of their lightly edited comments:

 

“One of the best ways I could prove that my memoir wasn’t written by AI is the notes that I took. Notes that recall personal, one-of-a-kind details that only I could confidently express since our own experiences are so unique.”

 

“I’m a real person with real feelings vs AI. It wouldn’t add any human emotions.”

 

“I have a certain writing style I seem to always write in, in comparison to AI’s style of writing papers.”

 

“A good way to prove that a paper was not written by AI is to take notes about your topic. The more notes you take on a topic, the better, so you can show your professor or teacher once you turn it in. I believe that the better notes taken on a topic, the easier your paper is going to be to write. Show your thought process and ideas that led to that specific topic.”

 

“I can provide any notes, outlines, drafts, brainstorming materials, or document revision history that may help demonstrate how the essay was developed.”

 

“How can I prove my essay was not written by AI?


·        I can document the writing process

·        Show the work history of my document

·        Have others proofread it for me

·        Document the editing process

·        Document any research that goes into the writing process”

 

I wasn’t surprised by these comments. They mostly boil down to “Turn in my invention materials, my drafts, and my feedback along with my final” – which they’re supposed to do anyway. What does this mean for working authors, though? You might have to treat your job a little like you’re in a composition class. The difference is that you would document your process in case someone asks to see it. This might mean extra work for you, and work that will seem useless if no agents or publishers ask for it. But it might become the standard way writers do business sooner rather than later.

 

For a time, I used to handwrite my drafts, so I would have those pages to show editors, but I haven’t done that for a few years now. I have outlines and notes regarding the characters, settings, names of things, etc., on my computer. Maybe those files are timestamped, but I have no idea if they are or how to find out. And I don’t leave track changes on when I write. Hell, I can barely figure out how to use track changes when an editor sends me manuscript feedback. So if an agent or editor asked me for proof that I wrote something, I wouldn’t have much.

 

In the old days—back when Fred, Barney, and I were in a writers’ group in Bedrock – common wisdom was that to prove you wrote a manuscript, you needed only mail it to yourself and then store it in a safe-deposit box. The date stamp on the envelope, along with no evidence of tampering, was supposed to be all the proof you needed. This won’t work in the age of AI, though. Even if you pay to officially register your copyright, the manuscript you submit could’ve been written by AI before you applied for copyright. There is a way you can do a modern equivalent of mailing yourself a copy of your work, though.

 

Get a new email address, and when you finish the day’s writing, send it to that address. You’ll have the file in the outgoing email of your main address, and the file will be in the inbox of your other address. I’m sure there are ways to falsify the day and time you sent an email, but most people don’t know how to do this. And yes, you could be sending small sections of an AI manuscript to yourself day after day to fake evidence of a writing process over months and years, but I doubt anyone who would use AI could make themselves wait so long to “finish” their novel. Process means nothing to them, because if it did, they’d write their own material and never go near AI.

 

If you get feedback from beta readers, make sure it’s dated, save it, and have it ready to show editors and agents if necessary. Having a folder on your computer for each project where you put all the process work will save you from having to send tons of attachments to agents and editors.

 

My college subscribes to Turnitin, a plagiarism detection program/service that’s only available to educational institutions, but there are alternatives you can use to generate a report that you could show to editors and agents. Here’s a link to an article on such alternatives that individuals can use:

 

“The Top 5 Turnitin Alternatives (2026)” https://gptzero.me/news/top-turnitin-alternatives/

 

I know, ChatGPT’s company wrote the article, but the comparison between the alternatives looks decent.

 

The following article provides specific steps you can take if you’re accused of using generative AI to produce your work. It’s written for students, so you’d need to adapt some of the steps for your situation.

 

 “How to Prove Your Essay Wasn’t Written by AI: Seven Steps to Prove Authorship.” https://racinecountyeye.com/2023/08/23/to-prove-essay-wasnt-written-by-ai/

 

I’m lucky. I’ve been writing and publishing for over forty years. I’ve got a long record of publication that I can put forward to show my current writing style, which – while hopefully improved – still holds similarities in style, content, language, and theme to my older work. Any writer who has published work before the advent of AI has this advantage. Some rando accuses you of using AI? Send them a link to your website, your Amazon author page, your bibliography on Fantastic Fiction, your Goodreads author page, or your Wikipedia entry. Or, if, like me, you have all of these, send them ALL the goddamned links!

 

Wikipedia has a long entry on how to spot AI-written text, as well as a quiz on how to test your AI-spotting ability. Since AI-written material is average at best, you could use the list to improve your own writing and avoid any unintentional similarities with AI slop. I think there’s a potential danger for writers here, though, because you might go nuts trying to make your writing “perfect” and end up so paralyzed that you never produce anything. Although editors and agents might find the examples in the entry handy to help them spot AI slop.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

 

What bothers me the most about the entry is this passage:

 

“One has to be aware that human speech and writing is being influenced by LLMs, and thus they are becoming more similar. This was already evident in 2024, as shown by a study that detected a significant LLM influence in spoken content (e.g. conversational podcasts). Further studies seem to confirm this influence on language, including semantics and word choices.”

 

(We are sooooooo fucked…)

 

I wrote a recent blog post discussing writing techniques that you can use that will set your work apart from AI (and hopefully save you the hassle of having to prove your work truly is your work). You can find the entry here: https://writinginthedarktw.blogspot.com/2026/04/how-to-win-war-against-ai-fiction.html

 

I think the most important thing writers can do during this time of AI upheaval is to preserve their sanity and their ability to continue creating their work. So do whatever you need to in order to stay mentally healthy and function creatively. If that means pretending you live in a world without AI, so be it. If you want to prepare yourself for potential questions about whether your work is AI, do that. But whatever you do, keep writing. The only way we’ll be able to counter AI slop is by continuing to produce good writing that only we can create.

 

Fuck AI.

 

DEPARTMENT OF SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION

 


My story “When the Mask Comes Off” appears in the Creepshow anthology edited by James Aquillone. (Officially released on June 23rd.) Amazon: https://tinyurl.com/45jf33zw

 


“The World Has Teeth” appears in Of Dread, Decay, and Doom, edited by Jendia Gammon, Gareth L. Powell, and Scarlett R. Algee. Amazon: https://tinyurl.com/2wzam2dd

 


“Closure” appears in Darkness at the End of the Road: The Winding Road Stories Horror Anthology, edited by Alexander Nader. Amazon: https://tinyurl.com/5aj2pnau

 

SCHEDULED APPEARANCES

 

Shore Leave 46. July 10-12. Lancaster Wyndham Resort and Convention Center, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

 

Gen Con Writers Symposium. July 29-August 2. Indianapolis, Indiana.

 

Into the Springs Writers Workshop. August 7-9. Yellow Springs, Ohio.

 

Shivercon. August 14-15. Muncie, Indiana.

 

WHERE TO FIND ME ONLINE

 

Want to follow me on social media? Here’s where you can find me:

 

Website: www.timwaggoner.com

Newsletter Sign-Up: https://timwaggoner.com/contact.htm

Amazon Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Tim-Waggoner/author/B001JP0XFM?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Blog: http://writinginthedarktw.blogspot.com/

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/timwaggonerswritinginthedark

Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/133838.Tim_Waggoner

Instagram: tim.waggoner.scribe

Threads: @tim.waggoner.scribe@threads.net

Bluesky: @timwaggoner.bsky.social

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tim.waggoner.9

Substack: @timwaggoner

 


Monday, April 27, 2026

Written By: Can Human-Created Writing and AI-Produced Writing Coexist?

 


One of my recent blog entries deals with how writers can outwrite AI. (It’s geared toward horror writers, but it applies to any fiction writer.) If you missed it, you can read it here: https://writinginthedarktw.blogspot.com/2026/04/how-to-win-war-against-ai-fiction.html

 

This entry is about what writers can do beyond their actual writing to continue setting themselves apart from aithors. I saw someone use the term aithors on social media, and if I could remember who it was, I’d give them credit. I do remember that they didn’t mean it as pejorative, and I don’t either. It seems to me an effective label to differentiate AI book-producers from writers whose work was created without generative AI.

 

I’m not going to debate the ethics of using AI to produce fiction in this entry. As a writer and human being, I’m against its use in the arts, both because it was trained on stolen material and because of its environmental impact. As a teacher, I’m against it because it keeps people from working to develop their own artistic skills. I’m putting my personal feelings aside right now and proceeding from the premise that aithors aren’t going anywhere and they’ll be selling their AI fiction on Amazon and selling their AI-produced books at conventions and book festivals.

 

I also use the terms AI-produced books and human-created books in this entry. AI-producers use a program to make a book for them. There’s some creation involved, but very little compared to non-AI-using authors. I wanted terms that accurately describe the process of making both types of books. If you’re an AI-producer and you’re salty that I don’t call you a writer, I can’t help you. You don’t write. You direct an AI program to string together words, sentences, and paragraphs based on the massive amount of information it stole. Maybe you shape it somewhat after that, but if anything, that’s editing work you did not write.

 

Truth in Advertising

 

Aithors should be upfront about how they produce their work, and readers should know ahead of time what sort of book they’re purchasing. Some readers may not care if a book was produced by AI or created by an actual human, but some will. Some may even prefer AI-produced books. It’s only ethical to inform consumers of the exact nature of what they’re purchasing. Producing a book with AI and pretending you created it all on your own is a lie. More than that, it’s fraud. People do employ ghostwriters and then pretend they wrote the finished product, and the ethics of this in terms of readers knowing exactly what they’re purchasing are the same as with AI-produced fiction, but at least a human (the ghostwriter) was paid in the process. (Although I wonder what AI will mean for professional ghostwriters. Will they find their work drying up, or will they use AI to produce books quickly so they can make even more money?)

 

This is an AI-Produced Novel

 

AI-produced fiction should be labeled as written by AI, produced by AI, assisted by AI, etc. I think assisted isn’t the best label, as it implies that AI may have only helped the writer a little bit. If AI was heavily used in the production of a book, the term assisted is misleading at best, and a lie at worst. Plus, an audience for AI-produced books may arise, and I would think aithors would want to market to them. Some aithors might argue that if they label their books as having been written by AI that it will limit their audience, and that’s probably true. But that happens with any type of fiction. I write horror and dark fantasy. Readers who love cozy mysteries are not going to buy my books. That’s fine. I don’t write in their preferred genre. Aithors might argue that labeling their work as AI-produced will make it seem inferior in the eyes of some readers, and that likely will happen. But writers of genre fiction are used to (some) literary writers and academics viewing our fiction as lesser. We know this, and most of us don’t worry about it. We know our work will never appeal to all readers, any more than the work of literary writers will. Plus, AI-produced fiction will likely become a genre all its own, one that, as I said earlier, may have its own readership. As its own genre, it’ll need vocabulary that names it and describes the process of producing it. I’ve used placeholder terms in this entry, but I imagine actual terms will be developed over time.

 

And if you use an AI-produced cover, you should disclose that as well. Anyone who’d be interested in reading an AI-producer’s book shouldn’t mind that the art AI uses to produce images was stolen.

 

I think it might be a good idea for aithors to have a page at the front of their books detailing how they used AI. If you used assistive AI, such as Grammarly, there’s no need to mention that, especially if you just use it for spelling and grammar checks (as I do). Be aware that Grammarly can trip AI-detection programs, so if an agent or editor is checking submissions for AI use, you don’t want them to think you used AI to produce your entire manuscript (or even the majority of it). If I picked up a book and saw such a list, and it said the aithor used AI only to generate ideas for character names and to provide feedback on work in process, I’d at least read a couple of paragraphs and see what I think about the writing. But if the book was labeled AI-produced without any further explanation, I wouldn’t touch it. Providing a list of ways you used AI could potentially broaden your audience. And if you used AI in very limited ways, you could potentially label your book as AI-enhanced (but don’t lie and say it’s enhanced when AI really produced the entire goddamned thing).

 

And yes, you could make an argument that using different labels to differentiate AI-produced books from human-created ones is a “separate but equal” policy, and that separate can never be equal. But I believe that human-created writing and AI-produced writing are different things. Even if you believe they’re essentially the same, just because green beans and French-cut green beans are the same vegetable, their preparation is different, and different consumers might prefer one over the other. Same with AI-produced books and human-created ones.

 

Something AI-producers should consider, though: We know you’re okay with having your book based on stolen material, don’t mind a cover produced with stolen art, and that you don’t care about the environmental impact of AI. So we have no reason to believe that you’ll be honest when you write your list of how you used AI. And you have no easy way to prove you’re telling the truth.

 

Be Loud, Be Proud

 

The coffee shop at the college where I teach “proudly serves Starbucks coffee.” Maybe Aithors should label their books as “Proudly produced with AI.” If aithors are proud of what they do, they shouldn’t be hesitant about identifying their books this way. If they aren’t proud to admit they use AI, then that says they don’t truly believe in what they’re doing. In which case, they should do some soul-searching about whether they truly want to use AI to produce their books. I may think using AI to produce fiction is nothing to be proud of, but why would aithors who truly believe in what they’re doing give a shit what I or anyone else thinks? Claiming the identity of an aithor (or whatever term eventually becomes standard) tells readers you aren’t ashamed of what you’re doing and that you believe it’s an ethical, viable alternative to human-created writing. And again, if you don’t believe that, maybe consider writing the old-fashioned way – just you, your imagination, the blank screen, and your words.

 

The Traditional Publishing Stamp of Approval

 

One advantage of traditional publishers is that they can vouch that your work was written by a human. They also vouch that your work is of a certain quality, like how a college degree makes it easier for employers to gauge that you – hopefully – have the experience, training, and knowledge for a job. It’s a stamp of approval that makes it easier for an audience to take a look at your work and seriously consider purchasing it. Big press, small press, it doesn’t matter. Having a press with a reputation for putting out good work vouch that your books are human-created will help readers believe they weren’t produced by AI. Otherwise…

 

Aren’t All “Authors” Aithors?

 

People may come to regard all indie writers as aithors, regardless of the truth. Anyone can say their books were not produced by AI, but how can readers know for sure? They can’t. (I mean general readers here, not well-read critical readers who are more likely to recognize AI-produced fiction.) Because of this, I wonder if many indie writers will start seeking out traditional publishers that can vouch for their work. I hope aithors don’t ruin things for indie writers, but I do foresee them being a huge pain in the ass for indies.

 

Like it Says on the Tin

 

Writers should use a non-AI label, like products labeled as gluten-free. Some writers and publishers are already doing this, but if you’re indie, I advise you to start doing it, and I’d consider putting a 100% Human-Created label on your book covers. If you’re a publisher and you’re not labeling your books this way, consider doing so. It’s a visual signal that your books are human-created, and people can see the label when the cover is posted online or if they stop at your table during a book-selling event. Hell, we should probably put 100% Human-Created on all our signage, too, and on our websites, and business cards… I sent my first story out for publication in 1982, so maybe I should put 100% Human-Created Since 1982 on all my shit. Maybe even make it a line in my bio.

 

The Authors Guild has started a human-written certification program. It’s only open to members at the moment, but they plan to open it to non-members as well: https://tinyurl.com/3evhzaz4



There are various other sites that offer human-written certification – for a price. A simple Google search will reveal them, but as always, buyer beware.

 

Here’s one from author Sarah Hall:

 



 

You can read an article about why she decided her latest novel needed a maker’s mark here:  https://lithub.com/human-written-why-sarah-hall-put-a-makers-mark-on-her-new-novel/

 

AI Marketing has both 100% Human Written and 100% AI Written badges: https://aimarketingplan.com/human-ai-content-badges/

 

So Happy Together

 

Indie writers who don’t want to make the move to traditional publishing should consider forming author collaboratives that seem like publishers, in the sense that the collaborative vouches for each member as a writer of human-created books. Members can cross-promote each other and table together at events to further cement their collective identity. They could also visually brand themselves with shirts or hats they wear at events, which have the group identity/logo on the front. I’m not sure what the best size for such collaborative groups would be. Three to five members, maybe? And, of course, make sure everyone is someone you want to be in a group with. Members can still do events as individuals, but wear their collaborative-branded shirts. They should probably have a group website with links to their individual sites, as well as a group newsletter in addition to individual ones.

 

If any of you have thoughts on anything I’ve mentioned above, or ideas you want to add to mine, feel free to put them in the comments. If anyone just spouts venom without contributing anything of substance, I’ll delete your comment and ask you to rewrite it so it’s constructive. If you’re an aithor (or want to be), I promise I won’t attack or ridicule you.

 

DEPARTMENT OF SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION

 

The World Turns Red

I still don’t have anything new to promote yet, so I’m promoting my novella from Cemetery Dance, which came out almost a year ago.



Welcome to the meat room.

 

At first, it’s a whisper on the edge of your consciousness.

 

As it gets louder, you begin to make out words—dark, sharp, dangerous words… You clap your hands over your ears to shut them out, but you can’t escape what comes from inside you.

 

The voice tells you to do things to yourself. Bad things. Awful things…

 

The longer you listen, the more they seem reasonable. Desirable.

 

Inevitable.

 

And as you reach for the nearest knife, gun, or rope, the voice speaks the last four words you’ll ever hear:

 

All hail the Unhigh.

 

“Waggoner blurs the lines between reality and nightmare, leaving readers questioning what is real and what is imagined. His setting against both a familiar and unsettling backdrop is expertly built within a world laced with an underlying sense of dread.”– Catherine Jordan, Horror Tree

 

“A dark, disturbing masterpiece worth binge-reading in one sitting.” – S.E. Howard

“This is a very dark, intense read with a surreal quality that pulled me in from page one and held me spellbound to the bitter end.” – Well Worth a Read

 

The World Turns Red is another in a long line of brilliant horror work by Tim Waggoner. There was never anyone who could blend the real with the surreal so seamlessly that, as wild as the story gets, it makes perfect sense somehow. Now THAT takes one hell of a writer. The book is a flawless masterpiece…6 out of 5 stars.”  – Carson Buckingham, Hellnotes

 

Amazon: https://tinyurl.com/5cabrjn2

 

SCHEDULED APPEARANCES

 

“The Art of Suspense” workshop. May 4, 5:30-6:30 p.m. Dayton Metro Library, Wilmington Stroop Branch. Kettering, Ohio.

 

StokerCon. June 4-7. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

 

Shore Leave 46. July 10-12. Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

 

GenCon Writers Seminar. July 30-August 2. Indianapolis, Indiana.

 

Into the Springs Writers Workshop. August 7-9. Yellow Springs, Ohio.

 

Shivercon. August 14-15. Muncie, Indiana.

 

WHERE TO FIND ME ONLINE

 

Want to follow me on social media? Here’s where you can find me:

 

Website: www.timwaggoner.com

Newsletter Sign-Up: https://timwaggoner.com/contact.htm

Substack: https://substack.com/@timwaggoner

Amazon Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Tim-Waggoner/author/B001JP0XFM?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Blog: http://writinginthedarktw.blogspot.com/

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/timwaggonerswritinginthedark

Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/133838.Tim_Waggoner

Instagram: @tim.waggoner.scribe

Threads: @tim.waggoner.scribe@threads.net

Bluesky: @timwaggoner.bsky.social

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tim.waggoner.9