Barnes & Noble CEO's stance on AI-generated books triggers backlash from authors and readers

The Barnes & Noble CEO thinks AI books are fine. He's wrong.

Letting AI books into our bookstores, even with a label, is a door we will regret opening. Barnes & Noble CEO James Daunt recently sat down with NBC News, and he said something that has been percolating in my mind. When asked about AI-written books, Daunt said, "Yes, I have actually no problem selling any book, as long as it doesn't masquerade or pretend to be something that it isn't, and that it has an essential quality to it, and that the customer, the reader, wants it." On the surface, that sounds perfectly sensible. As long as readers can clearly see the label, they can make a choice. But if you take a moment to think about it, there are important questions that this approach leaves unanswered. Is "just label it" really good enough? Barnes & Noble is one of the most powerful retailers in the publishing world. When the largest retail bookseller in the United States signals that AI-written books are welcome on its shelves, it sends a message to publishers, agents, and authors alike that this is a legitimate product category. Recommended Videos Think about what a real book represents. A writer spent months, sometimes years, researching, writing, revising, creating a concoction, and then pouring it onto a page. Not only that, everything a writer puts on the page is colored with the lens they formed with their life experiences. That's what makes books human, and why we sometimes read books covering the same topic from different writers. AI, on the other hand, takes everything it learned from the generation of human experience, strips the humanity, and serves the slop. Yes, the book might have the best grammar, the best plot structure, and even a good story. But will it have the human touch that makes a book special? I think not. At best, it can pretend, using the knowledge it stole from the great books written by human authors. The moment a major retailer shrugs and says AI books are fine as long as they're labeled, it starts chipping away at the understanding that a book is a human endeavor. Also, who decides what constitutes an AI-written book and what the label looks like? Is it enough if the label is hidden obscurely on some page, where no one can find it unless they are looking for it? Even if they have a clear label, so what? Will you let a thief enter your home, as long as they wear a label saying they are one? It's ridiculous. And make no mistake; any AI-written book, no matter how good it is, is a thief parading in costume, which has stolen the stories from human-written books, without consent. The human cost of letting AI books in our bookshops Every bookshop has a limited space. If we allow AI books to enter our bookshops, it doesn't create a space out of a vacuum. Every AI book taking a shelf space is replacing one written by a human. And without a proper system in place, which Barnes & Noble doesn't seem to have, it would be hard for a reader to differentiate between a human and an AI-written book. Daunt even acknowledged that Barnes & Noble might already be selling AI-written books without knowing it. "We have 300,000 titles across all of our stores. Do we think that some of those may be AI? The chances are that they are, but we're not really conscious of them," he said in the NBC News interview. That is not the reassuring admission he thinks it is. What you see is what you buy. If thousands of readers walk into the store and see AI books prominently placed, some of them are bound to pick one up. It will make money for some mega corporation or AI-bro who has started treating books as his new side business. That's a sale that could have gone to an author who actually deserved it. I am not saying all human-written books are great. I have written some bad ones myself. But even if a book is bad or just not your taste, you know someone put real effort into it, so the hit on the purse doesn't sting that much. Think how you will feel if your books were written by a prompt? Also, since AI can generate books at a much faster rate than we can write them, if we open the doors to these books, the market will be flooded. The e-book market is already filled with AI slop; we don't want our bookstores to look the same. This is not happening in a vacuum It would be one thing if Barnes & Noble were making this call in isolation. But this is part of a much larger and deeply troubling pattern. Vox Media and The Atlantic both signed deals with OpenAI, allowing the company to train its models on their entire content archives. The New York Times signed its first AI content licensing agreement with Amazon. USA Today, Condé Nast, and Hearst have also signed multi-year licensing deals with Amazon. AI licensing deals are now becoming a big source of revenue for publishers. So publishers are getting paid, and that money is making these deals feel justified. As for the writers whose work is being used to train these models? Most of them are seeing nothing. The pattern is clear here. First, media companies license their content to AI. Then AI uses that content to generate new content. Then retailers agree to sell that AI-generated content. This will repeat until all human writers are fired and all of us are left with a steaming pile of AI slop in our hands, wondering how we got here. Books are one of the last places where human creativity has not been fully colonized by AI. Opening that door, even with a label slapped on it, is a precedent the industry will struggle to walk back. Some doors should remain closed, no matter how lucrative the prize behind them seems to be.

Barnes & Noble CEO clarifies the bookseller's stance on AI-written books after refusing to ban them: 'This is a straightforward rejection of AI books' | Fortune

Barnes & Noble CEO James Daunt wants to set the record straight on his views on AI-generated books. In an interview with NBC News earlier this week, Daunt said he would not outright ban the sales of books written by AI. Daunt took the helm of the bookseller in 2019, helping to lead it through a turnaround of sliding sales by embracing the ethos of a small business, encouraging individual locations to layout their stores based on the interests and demand of their customer bases. "I have actually no problem selling any book, as long as it doesn't masquerade or pretend to be something that it isn't, and that it has an essential quality to it, and that the customer, the reader, wants it," Daunt told Today's Jenna Bush Hager. "So as long as an AI-written book says it's an AI-written book and doesn't pretend to be something else and isn't ripping off somebody else -- as long as that's clearly stated and the customer wants to buy it -- then we will stock them." Daunt's own admission about not condemning AI-generated books outright drew swift ire from social media, including intentions to boycott the company until it changed its AI policy. The backlash is part of a larger trend of people -- including college graduates booing commencement speakers invoking AI -- expressing public opposition to the technology. In Daunt's eyes, his comments were far from an endorsement of using AI to pen manuscripts. Instead, he clarified in an email to Fortune, Barnes & Noble has taken steps to avoid selling content written by large language models, even though it will not outright prohibit sales of AI-generated content. Rather, Daunt said banning a certain subset of books could be a slippery slope in debates around what entities are responsible for restricting AI content and why. No reputable publisher would choose to release an AI-generated book, he said, meaning it would be unlikely for Barnes & Noble to stock those books. "Our position is that we do not sell AI books, as far as we are aware; we take active measures to exclude all AI-generated books from our online catalogue and never knowingly order any for stocking in our stores; and we demand that publishers label any books that are AI-generated," Daunt told Fortune. "This is a straightforward rejection of AI books." The bookselling industry has faced escalating challenges from the proliferation of AI-generated products. In March, publisher Hachette Book Group announced it would no longer publish the UK edition of its horror novel Shy Girl over suspected AI use. This week, the short story "The Serpent in the Grove," drew similar scrutiny when readers suspected the piece, one of the winners of the Commonwealth Short Story Prize, was written by AI, an allegation that Granta, the story's publisher, is investigating. Daunt's own refusal to prohibit the sale of AI-generated books is less about the technology than it is about wanting to avoid engaging in the knotty conversation about banning books. A potential prohibition of AI-generated books would require a set of standards that would be difficult to identify, let alone enforce, Daunt claimed. For example, would Barnes & Noble refuse to sell only books 100% written by AI, or those more than 50% AI-generated? According to the CEO, the responsibility to just what is AI-generated should come from a publisher, not a bookseller. Moreover, he said, there may be a time when consumers demand AI-generated books, such in the case of computer coding manuals. Rather than have a prescriptive policy, Daunt suggested drawing a line in the sand on AI books is not Barnes & Noble's role. "This would take a days-long conference to explore, and suggests further to us that our position is one of common sense," Daunt said. Though Daunt said he did not want Barnes & Noble to wade into discourse around censorship and book banning in the conversation about AI, arguments surrounding who should define the parameters of AI-generated content extends beyond shelves and the walls of a bookstore. David Inserra, a fellow at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, argued in a 2024 briefing paper regulating AI was an attack on free speech because it could limit potential to leverage the technology as a tool to further human development. "While some implementations of AI justify extreme caution -- such as autonomous military technology with the power to wage war -- a risk-based approach acknowledges that most AI applications," Inserra wrote, "especially those involving speech and expression, should be considered innocent until proven guilty." A 2023 report from the nonprofit Freedom House argues the contrary, claiming AI has been used both as a way to control online information systems, and by those distributing misinformation online. Among the nonprofits recommendations for protecting free speech in the age of AI is to develop reliable detection software for AI-generated content. "AI can be used to supercharge censorship, surveillance, and the creation and spread of disinformation," Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House, said in a statement on the report. "Advances in AI are amplifying a crisis for human rights online."

Barnes and Noble CEO Says Sure, Why Not Sell AI-Generated Books and Set Our Reputation On Fire?

Can't-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech Barnes & Noble has been making a comeback over the past few years -- which is impressive, since it once looked like the dominance of Amazon, the shift to digital books, and the decline of reading at large all pointed to the chain going the same way Borders did. Now it's turning back into a popular spot to hang out in and even buy physical tomes, opening 60 new stores in 2025 with plans to do the same this year. But this week, its CEO James Daunt decided to make a completely unforced error and step on a total PR landmine: AI. In an interview on the NBC News show "Today," he doubled down that Barnes & Noble would be open to selling AI-generated books, with certain caveats. "I have actually no problem selling any book, as long as it doesn't masquerade or pretend to be something that it isn't, and that it has an essential quality to it, and that the customer, the reader, wants it," he pontificated. "So as long as an AI-written book says it's an AI-written book and doesn't pretend to be something else and isn't ripping off somebody else, as long as that's clearly stated and the customer wants to buy it, then we will stock them." It's a comment that will nettle authors, many of whom view AI technology as being built on their stolen writing, on top of threatening their profession. There're still a number of lawsuits brewing that could determine if AI companies plagiarized authors' work by using it as training data for their models. Readers aren't a fan of AI either. Any time that an author or journalist gets caught using AI is an occasion for backlash and newsworthy scandal. Waffling answers on where a major bookseller stands on the tech aren't going to satisfy anyone. But if you are going to leave the door open to AI, Daunt's stipulations sound reasonable: disclose if you use AI, or get kicked to the curb. Reputable news organizations have demands like this, and so do many book publishers; earlier this year, the novel "Shy Girl" was pulled from shelves by Hachette Book Group after its author was accused of heavily using AI to write it. Even the video game storefront Steam requires developers disclose the use of any AI-generated content. It's the bare minimum. "We have 300,000 titles across all of our stores. Do we think that some of those may be AI? The chances are that they are, but we're not really conscious of them," Daunt said. That said, Daunt doesn't think AI books are ever going to take off. "At the moment, it seems unlikely to us that these AI-generated books are going to get much commercial traction," he said. "So I think it's something that one should treat with common sense and acceptance, but not allow anything to masquerade (as)."