{continued from part two} 

6. The Return of McCarthyism

Remember the big bad-guy AI, I mentioned from science fiction? Back in the 1950s, when AI fiction first took off, it was never really about computers at all. It was about Communism. America, during the early Cold War, was gripped by fear. Egged on by Senator Joe McCarthy, the Red Scare became an Us vs Them mentality that was impossible to ignore. Because all it took was one finger point, and you were evil. You were blacklisted. You were the enemy. 

The aliens in the old sci fi movies represented this fear. So did the early AI ideas. And it was a real fear in Hollywood. People would be blacklisted just for the supposed "crime" of being Communist. Nothing could be more "un-American". 

History loves to repeat itself. 

The publishing industry is where it's happening hardest. 

Social media, already moving into rather nasty place overall, has become a haven of finger pointing. And it's not just there. The Commonwealth Prize for Short Fiction has a massive AI Scandal and just two days ago, another massive book deal was dropped over suspected AI use. 

I'm not angry at AI... I'm angry at the industry. I'm angry at the lack of critical thinking. And for the record, according to MIT and others, AI-checkers just do not work. AI detectors are trained on human writing, and have claimed that the Declaration of Independence is AI and so is Shakespeare, Bronte and more. 

Publishing is in a precarious place. By Sept 2025, nearly half of industry professionals, including editors and agents, reported using AI. Yet all had deep ethical concerns. The industry's answer thus far has been to demand that anyone who uses AI disclose it. 

In fact, the big 5 publishers developed a Framework meant to guide their own authors. It boils to this, admit if you used AI in the process, and you're an AI Author. Hard stop. 

Oof. 

Swing and a miss. 

This is not an Ethics policy, or even a guide. It's so mistaken it's laughable. 

I take an in-person writing class, for example, each week in Valletta. We sometimes answer writing prompts, as a way to jog the creativity. You know what I'm talking about, the prompts like "you walk into a room, and suddenly you see it..." These prompts have been helping writers for decades. Now let's say one of those writing prompts encouraged a full book. And...what if AI had provided that prompt? Is it an AI book? 

What if you were doing research and typed a search question into Google. The only answer you get is driven by AI. If you use that answer, is your book an AI book? 

The authors out there who are pointing the fingers the strongest, and decrying all possible AI use are missing the lines. If you advertise on Meta now (long considered the gold standard of advertising), you cannot opt out of AI. If your book exists on the largest book search engine globally (Amazon)- the sole defining feature of their algorithm that defines your books visibility is Amazon's internal AI. Does marketing your book on Meta make you an AI author? Where is the line? 

Industry after industry is giving guidance to its professionals. At CharityScribe, we even offer nonprofits a free AI Ethics Policy to help them, which they customize to fit their own needs. Authors NEED​ an ethics policy. They need to know that AI exists. Yes, the big companies have done terrible stuff, but not everything you hear is true either. And the finger pointing and blaming really need to stop...    

​7. A Story You Might Know

There's a story going around the internet. It talks about a teacher who gave 35 students an essay question. He placed a hidden line of text in white, saying to put the word Madagascar in a nonsensical way into the essay. 32 of the students turned an essay in with the word Madagascar in it, and failed, for AI use. 

Maybe you've heard the story. I've seen it posted dozens of times. And it perfectly illustrates a point... but not the point you think it does. 

I did a bit of digging. Turns out the "source" of this story is Facebook. That seems to be as far back as it goes. The New York Post and several other outlets picked it up, citing Facebook. If you ask AI, the systems will say it is true, because it was on Facebook...

But let's think about this story. If you've ever used a general use AI (like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc) you know that they work by copying instructions into a text box. So...35 students supposedly copy and paste... which would make the white text appear in the text box, wouldn't it? Let's go a bit deeper... let's say that somehow all 35 students did somehow miss the instruction, and maybe uploaded an image of their question. They've put this same essay prompt into different AI models 35 times. Here's where the story's logic falls completely apart. Remember how AI works? It's based on algorithmic predictions. In other words, there is a near-zero chance that one instruction, entered 35 times, would actually be followed correctly! There's very little chance that the AIs are going to get the Madagascar instruction right that often! 

Now, maybe the story is true. Maybe it's not. I've seen zero proof either way. But here's the real kicker... why is the story on Facebook in the first place? And how does it make you feel? 

McCarthyism is the utmost outgrowth of propaganda out of control. And isn't that endemic of our current world? From the rise of fascist governments, to a growing distrust of media, and more... the story of the test is just another example of propaganda that worked. It likely tapped into your confirmation bias and fed your hate of AI. And it proved the exact point you thought you were reading about the students... that critical thinking and analysis are often shortchanged in the era of AI (US AI-generated totally incorrect map of Africa, for instance...)

​8. What's Next? 

So what's the answer? If AIs nearly impossible to detect and does train on our books, how do we develop our own AI Ethics policies as authors? Is AI okay to use? Is it even avoidable? 

I can't answer those questions for you- because I think every author out there has to think hard, and answer them for themselves. 

FOR ME:
I will never use any AI words or AI generated text in any part of my books.
​I will also never use AI generated text in blogs
However, I am fine with AI as a part of advertising. I have started making book trailers for my Builder's World middle grade books, and I admit I used AI to make these trailers. I also drew the covers myself in Canva, but then used AI to augment the covers further. 

In a rather mundane admission, I also am fine asking AI for advice. Formatting my Builder's World books was difficult, as I've not self published through Ingram before. I reached out to the Ingram team for help, and got no response. So...I asked an AI. And yes, it was able to tell me why my sizing was off. It didn't write or change any of the text. For me, asking AI for advice in publishing questions is an acceptable use. 

And...I'm terrified to publish this piece. I'm sure some will read it, and in the same McCarthyistic vein, label me an AI Author who must be banished into the abyss. They will go out of their way to decry my decisions. Yes, that's the publishing world right now. It's a nasty place. 

But the truth is that saying AI is all bad or all good misses the fact that it's here. It's environmental impact is far less than a hamburger. The biggest tech companies and plenty of individuals are using it to do bad things...but others are genuinely trying to leverage AI for good. And I think that moving forward, every author has to exercise a bit of critical thinking and ask if the finger pointing serves them, or if it only holds them back.

If you are totally against AI in all forms, I respect that. 
If you use AI daily, I respect that too. 

The worst thing about the social media age is the move to an "I'm right, you're wrong" soapbox mentality, without taking the time to listen to why others might disagree. Agree, or disagree, think hard about how you came to this place mentally in your relation to AI... and ask yourself what your own ethics around the subject might be? 
 

{continued from Part One}

4. Playing Robin Hood
  
Wealth inequality is a hugely divisive issue. The rich are getting obscenely rich, and the cost of normal living continues to rise for the rest of us. On social media recently I saw someone post "If AI can do so much, can't someone make a Robin Hood style AI to take money from the rich and give to the poor". 

Yeah, we have. And have been doing so for the past three years. 

My wife Rachel and I, during the day, are fundraising consultants. We work to help nonprofits across the world. And Rachel was one of the first to see the potential of AI in terms of wealth inequality. 

A year and half ago, at the height of the DOGE cuts in the American government, a series of awful things happened. First, USAid was ended. Completely gone. One of the largest nonprofits globally, that helped millions of people live. But it didn't end there. The entire mechanism of federal giving collapsed. The federal database was purged, as Trump and Musk's minions search for anything they didn't like. Funding towards equity, funding in supposedly blue states, funding towards science or the arts and humanities... all of it vanished. (And no, none of this saved US Taxpayers money- in fact, the defecit continues to spiral thanks to tariffs and the Iran War but that's another story). 

There was a lot of news when USAid ended. And the vast majority of Americans and people globally did the same thing in response. They posted angrily on social media. And then forgot about it by the following week. 

Rachel and I never forgot. And we actively moved to help. 

We built CharityScribe.io - an original AI system (Rachel designed the AI agents all herself) based on our fundraising expertise to move money from the rich to the poor. From opportunities that were harder than ever to find, straight to those programs that can make a difference. 

Development is writing. And writers are supposed to hate any form of AI, I know (more on that later- I warned you this was a long post), but for those who have never been in development the type of writing is technical and sort of BS. It's a form of legalese often ten to twenty pages worth per application, all to move money to nonprofits from corporations or foundations with extra wealth. 

The AI tools we built are contained. They train and learn from the organizations data. And they're necessary. Some of these nonprofits were dumping their info into ChatGpt and Claude (zero security- their data is now freely on the web) and others were struggling to prospect or grant write at all. And we saw astounding results. A food pantry that doubled its revenue in a year. A preschool able to raise over 35,000 in the first week of a campaign. An equity firm that landed their first 200,000 dollars in only four months. This is modern day Robin Hood stuff, right there. 

5. But What About the Bad? 

Hold on, you say... using AI for a good cause? To help the world? That's irrelevant, because AI is bad... 

​Well, as I mentioned, AI is a bad name for a product shoved on you in a bad way. But is AI inheritably bad? Is any tech bad or good? Or is it just how people use it? 

For starters, my Robin Hood example is how we use AI, and I'm proud of it. In fact, on THIS LIST of seven uses of AI for Social Good, AI For Nonprofits is actually number 1.  But there's plenty more. From helping people with disabilities to cancer screenings, to research on nuclear fusion, AI has the power to help us as a species. In fact, scientists are currently using AI to attempt to speak with dolphins, who have language, in an experiment that might be the first true inter-species communication ever. 

That's not to say the big tech companies haven't done some very horrendous things. The recent news about the destruction of rare books is awful, and frankly- completely unnecessary. They could buy and scan the books without destroying them, but it would be far slower. Yes, speed solely for greed. It's nauseating.

And the theft of IP is real as well. In fact, if you've used Claude at all, you can thank School of Deaths  which was among the pirated books Anthropic stole. Yes, I'm in the class action lawsuit, still waiting for my check. 

However... a lot of the "bad" is misinformation or spin. 

In fact, I'd argue that the biggest, legit bad about AI is the blur between what's real and what's fake. The glut of fake news and fake videos and downright lies is simply depressing. But let's look at one of the biggest spins that you're familiar with... the environmental impact. 

Don't get me wrong, AI isn't the best for the environment. But it's also far from the boogeyman you've heard. Yes, AI centers use water... but theyre nothing compared to a far more devious culprit. A culprit that has decimated the environment, been one of the leading causes of carbon in the atmosphere, and has used far more water than AI ever will... I'm talking about factory farming, especially the meat industry. 

"AI data centres are projected to use about 1 km³ of freshwater a year by 2028. Livestock farming already consumes around 228 km³, roughly 200 times more, and most of that goes to irrigating animal feed, not to the animals themselves." Read more HERE But that's just the beginning. An astonishing third of carbon emissions contributing to global Climate Change are attributed to agriculture, particularly factory farming. The cycle is brutal. Forests are chopped down (including the rainforest), cattle and other animals are grown in tight communities that require massive amounts of water and electricity. Then even more electricity and energy is used to freeze/cool the meat after slaughter, during transport, and on to sale. And eventually the land becomes unlivable, starting the cycle fresh. 

Yes, my family's vegan, but the truth is I don't care if you eat meat. All I ask is that you think a bit before wielding the water and environmental sword like a bludgeon towards anyone who's ever used AI. If you're ok with burgers, but blame AI for water issues... you are not thinking critically.

​To be concluded in part three...