In August 2024, a wave of criticism erupted against a group of thirteen speculative‑fiction writers who took part in a 2022 Google research project called the Wordcraft Writers Workshop. The authors – including Ken Liu, Robin Sloan and Shirley Jackson Award‑winner Eugenia Triantafyllou – were recruited to test a writing‑centric interface for Google’s large language model LaMDA, then being developed into the Gemini system. A former participant’s social‑media post sparked calls for boycotts, accusations of legitimizing “plagiarism machines,” and a broader debate over AI’s role in creative professions.
Background of the Wordcraft Writers Workshop
In the spring of 2022, Google’s DeepMind division approached a select set of award‑winning and bestseller authors with an invitation to evaluate an experimental tool. The internal model, LaMDA, had shown emergent writing abilities and was later incorporated into the Gemini platform. DeepMind also housed the Magenta project, an open‑source effort focused on artistic applications of machine learning, making it a natural home for the study.
The initiative, dubbed the Wordcraft Writers Workshop, placed participants under strict nondisclosure agreements and gave them access to a “magic text editor” called Wordcraft – essentially a Microsoft‑Word‑like interface paired with a chatbot. Each writer received eight weeks to produce a short story, using the AI as much or as little as desired. At least one author completed the assignment without any AI‑generated text. The resulting stories were posted on Magenta’s website alongside a white paper documenting the experiment.
Author reactions and public outcry
The controversy resurfaced when Lily Lachance, a self‑described “anti‑gen‑AI absolutist,” posted a link to the Wordcraft study on her Bluesky profile on August 6. Her now‑deleted message labeled the project “Google’s AI slop engine” and declared she would no longer read any work by the participants. The post quickly circulated among Bluesky’s literary community, prompting many users to share the names of the thirteen writers and threaten boycotts.
Participants responded with a range of statements. Triantafyllou, who won a Shirley Jackson Award, said she had joined the study before the rise of ChatGPT, believing it was a research tool rather than a system trained on copyrighted material. She later expressed a “deep hatred for AI slop and LLMs” and affirmed she had never used AI to write her stories. Another author, identified only as Talabi, posted on Bluesky that the experience gave them a lasting aversion to AI‑generated text.
Some writers, such as Ken Liu and Robin Sloan, are noted for limited social‑media presence, making it unclear how they have engaged with the criticism. Vajra Chandrasekera, a prolific science‑fiction author and former editor at Strange Horizons, wrote a measured Bluesky thread acknowledging that participating in 2022 was a mistake but arguing that the participants should not be condemned if they are no longer pro‑AI.
Broader AI controversy in the arts
The Wordcraft backlash reflects a larger shift in public sentiment toward large language models. In 2022, many creators were still unaware of the implications of LLMs, according to author Lincoln Michel, who noted that serious concerns were not yet mainstream. By 2023, high‑profile lawsuits – such as illustrator Sarah Anderson’s copyright suit against an AI company in January and OpenAI suits filed by Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad in June – signaled growing legal challenges.
Critics have pointed to sections of Google’s white paper that record participants’ worries about the provenance of Wordcraft’s suggestions. One participant, Allison Parrish, reportedly began web‑searching the model’s outputs to verify they were not plagiarized. Yet an unnamed award‑winning writer told Engadget that Google had not explained how the technology functioned or who else was involved, reinforcing claims of insufficient transparency.
As AI tools become more capable, the episode underscores the tension between technological experimentation and the rights of creators whose work fuels these models. Whether the “Shameful 13” will face lasting reputational damage remains uncertain, but the incident has amplified calls for clearer ethical guidelines and consent mechanisms in future AI‑assisted creative research.
Norman Pearlstine is the Chief Editor of News Raise and focuses on Business news. His responsibility is to oversee the editorial content including business, commodities, personal investments and the stock market.
