SFPA Statement on Generative AI1

Adopted by a vote of the SFPA membership, May 20242, with clarifying statement added June 2024.


The SFPA recognizes and supports the creative talent of human beings. While the organization encourages creative exploration of new tools, we can not support the use of tools built on the exploitation of other people’s creative work without their consent or compensation.

While the terms “AI,” “LLM,” and “generative media” (which we will call “generative tools” for this statement) are being used for many applications, these technologies are part of a rapidly changing environment and no two are designed the same way. There have been cases of proven and alleged copyright infringement with many such tools, however, as well as arguments that they exploit creative work.

The allegations of copyright infringement in generative tools typically rests on the fact that these tools are “trained” on datasets made of other artists’ and authors’ work without their consent3. These training materials are how generative tools create “new” works, which may or may not resemble the original creator’s work. However, not all generative tools are necessarily exploitative or plagiaristic, with some companies looking to create ethical alternatives trained on datasets that are made up solely of creator-submitted and compensated materials.


As an organization that supports creators, the SFPA will not accept or publish poetry, art, or other works created using a generative tool, either wholly or in part.

Published works created using a generative tool will not be eligible for SFPA awards.

The SFPA will also not use generative works in any of its official publications, including Star*Line, Eye to the Telescope, the SpecPo Blog, and the SFPA website.


1. “Generative AI can be thought of as a machine-learning model that is trained to create new data, rather than making a prediction about a specific dataset. A generative AI system is one that learns to generate more objects that look like the data it was trained on.” (Zewe, 2023)

2.Voting breakdown was as follows (n = 168):
69%: I support a complete AI ban.
25%: I support a limited AI ban.
7%: I support neither statement.

3.“In a case filed in late 2022, Andersen v. Stability AI et al., three artists formed a class to sue multiple generative AI platforms on the basis of the AI using their original works without license to train their AI in their styles, allowing users to generate works that … would be unauthorized derivative works.” (Appel, Neelbauer, and Schweidel, 2023)

Clarifying Statement Added June 8th, 2024

Generative tools, as covered by this policy, are "AI" tools which generate new content after huge amounts of other data are inputted into them. For example, tools which generate completely new images by typing into a prompt, or which output new text based on user interactions.

Here are common examples of generative tools:

As per the new policy, SFPA will not accept or publish poetry, art, or other works which use these or other generative tools as part of the creative process. Such works will also not be eligible for SFPA awards or used by SFPA in its official publications.

The policy does not stop you from using spell check, grammar check, or other common writing aids, so long as they are not generative tools as defined above.

Examples of tools which are not generative:

These tools only respond to your human-created content. They do not generate new content.

Please note, however, that many online tools for improving your writing have generative AI options built in. Anything which writes example sentences, creates a revised text based on a rough draft, creates detailed outlines from a prompt, or otherwise generates new text or images, may not be submitted to SFPA or honored with an SFPA award under the new policy.

Examples of tools which use generative AI:

While you are free to still use only the spell check or grammar checker aspects of these tools, you should always read the terms of use to make sure the companies which run them are not feeding anything you write into their datasets—if they are, you may be giving corporations permission to use and remix and otherwise profit from your work without realizing it.

background image sfpa logo