Should book publishers use AI tools in their internal workflows?
Simon & Schuster defends approved AI tools for internal work. Literary agents want disclosure or a ban, while Kathleen Schmidt distinguishes writing publicity from administrative assistance.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Schmidt's October 10 response (opens in a new tab) draws a distinction between generating publicity and helping publicists find suitable contacts. She says automated pitches risk sounding alike, describes using AI-assisted podcast research, and asks the industry to set use-specific rules.
The question is which operational uses publishers should permit and what they should tell authors and staff. A rule allowing administrative assistance need not permit uploading unpublished manuscripts or generating creative work. The separate proposal for employee-monitoring software is outside this case.
Timeline
2 timeline entries on this page. Dates: October 9, 2026 to October 10, 2026
October 2026
2 events
WIRED publishes report on publishers' internal AI use
Source release
WIRED published interviews with workers and named responses from Grutjen and Dries.
[01]Book Publishers Are Quietly Using More AI. Staff Are Revolting
Original interviews about publishers' operational AI use.
Book Publishers Are Quietly Using More AI. Staff Are RevoltingWibke Grutjen's statement and Emma Dries's closing commentsSchmidt distinguishes publicity writing from administrative AI
Reaction
Schmidt criticized AI-written publicity pitches while supporting administrative assistance and asking for clearer industry rules.
[02]Big Publishers Are Using AI. It Doesn't Surprise Me.
Schmidt distinguishes AI-written publicity from administrative assistance and calls for clearer rules.
Big Publishers Are Using AI. It Doesn't Surprise Me.Publicity copy, Podseeker example and closing discussion of AI guidelines
Response record
Responses
Latest recorded positions: 3. Dates: October 9, 2026 to October 10, 2026
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 responses on this page
Kathleen SchmidtBook publicist and author of the Publishing Confidential newsletter, in a newsletter post "I agree it is short-sighted to use them for publicity copy and pitches, because if that becomes the norm, all pitches and publicity copy will start sounding the same."
Mixed or conditionalCase context: Should book publishers use AI tools in their internal workflows?
Read more
Book publicist Kathleen Schmidt said she agrees it is short-sighted to use AI to write publicity copy and pitches, because they would all start sounding the same, while saying AI-powered media databases are useful in publicity work.
Before the statement
Schmidt was writing about Adam Morgan's WIRED article, in which publishing employees described publishers using AI for publicity copy and pitches, and a Big Five publicist called using AI to generate publicity copy short-sighted.
After the statement
She went on to say that media databases powered by AI are "a good thing" for building media lists.
Big Publishers Are Using AI. It Doesn't Surprise Me.Publicity copy, Podseeker example and closing discussion of AI guidelinesWhy this label?
The case asks whether book publishers should use AI tools in their internal workflows. Schmidt agrees "it is short-sighted to use them for publicity copy and pitches" but says an AI-powered media database is "a good thing". Because she opposes one use and supports another, we labeled it Mixed or conditional. The closest competing label is Condemned; it loses because she endorses AI for media research.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Simon & SchusterGlobal chief marketing and communications officer Wibke Grutjen, speaking for Simon & Schuster to WIREDDirectly involved "the goal is always to free up more time for our employees to spend on deeper focus and creative work on behalf of and alongside our authors."
Defended or excusedCase context: Should book publishers use AI tools in their internal workflows?
Read more
Wibke Grutjen, Simon & Schuster's global chief marketing and communications officer, told WIRED that employees across all functions have access to a limited number of enterprise-level AI tools, that using them is not mandatory, and that the company prohibits any AI tool that has not been vetted and approved. She said the goal is to free up more time for employees to spend on deeper focus and creative work.
Before the statement
WIRED reported that agents suspect Big Five editors of using AI to write rejection letters, and that employees at Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins and Hachette say they believe the suspicions are correct.
After the statement
WIRED reported that HarperCollins did not respond to requests for comment.
Book Publishers Are Quietly Using More AI. Staff Are RevoltingWibke Grutjen's statement and Emma Dries's closing commentsWhy this label?
The reference point is whether book publishers should use AI tools in their internal workflows. Grutjen says Simon & Schuster gives employees a limited set of vetted tools, that use is voluntary and that the goal is to free up time for deeper and creative work, which supports internal use, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because she limits use to approved tools; she describes the tools' purpose as freeing up employees' time, so it loses.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Emma DriesAgent at Triangle House Literary, speaking to WIRED "Short of these tools being banned, which would frankly be my preference ... everybody should be communicating more."
Mixed or conditionalCase context: Should book publishers use AI tools in their internal workflows?
Read more
Emma Dries, an agent at Triangle House Literary, told WIRED that a ban on AI tools would frankly be her preference and that, short of a ban, everybody should be communicating more.
Before the statement
WIRED reported that most of the industry professionals it spoke with want publishers to provide clear AI usage guidelines and disclosures at the very least, and quoted Dries as saying that she needs publishers to be clear about what is being used and when.
After the statement
This remark does not say which uses of AI Dries would ban.
Book Publishers Are Quietly Using More AI. Staff Are RevoltingWibke Grutjen's statement and Emma Dries's closing commentsWhy this label?
The reference point is whether book publishers should use AI tools in their internal workflows. Dries says she would prefer the tools be banned and, short of that, wants publishers to communicate more, which sets out an ordered preference with a conditional fallback, so we labeled it Mixed or conditional. The closest competing label is Condemned, because a ban is her stated preference; she also says what should happen without one, so it loses.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(2)
Reporting
Book Publishers Are Quietly Using More AI. Staff Are Revolting
Relevant passage: Wibke Grutjen's statement and Emma Dries's closing comments
About this source
Original interviews about publishers' operational AI use.
- Author
- Adam Morgan
- Published
- Accessed
Analysis
Big Publishers Are Using AI. It Doesn't Surprise Me.
Relevant passage: Publicity copy, Podseeker example and closing discussion of AI guidelines
About this source
Schmidt distinguishes AI-written publicity from administrative assistance and calls for clearer rules.
- Author
- Kathleen Schmidt
- Published
- Accessed
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Should book publishers use AI tools in their internal workflows?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/book-publishers-ai-internal-workflows-publicity-author-consent
The Dispute Index. "Should book publishers use AI tools in their internal workflows?". First published: 2026-10-11. Last updated: 2026-10-11. https://disputeindex.com/cases/book-publishers-ai-internal-workflows-publicity-author-consent