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 A rule allowing administrative assistance need not permit uploading unpublished manuscripts or generating creative work.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.
1 response on this page
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.
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