After weeks – months? – of shopping for an affordable email sender for my blog posts, I finally landed one, and sent out a post on June 30. That, ladies and gentlemen, was two months ago. Soon afterward, I discovered that at least some of the 3,200 subscribers never saw it because it landed in their Spam file.

The problem, according to the sending firm, was that the DKIM hadn’t been installed. Oh, well now, that explains everything. What in the @%#$&* is the DKIM? I understand the SPAM, but this was a new one on me – as is just about everything in the cockeyed technological universe.

Turns out, it stands for DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM). Is that clear now? Probably not, so allow me to quote an explanation by the people who came up with this … thing. DKIM “is an email authentication method that can help prevent emails from going to spam.” So far, so good. “DKIM works by adding a digital signature to the email header, which is created using a private key only known to the sender’s domain. The recipient’s email server then verifies the signature …” Oh, forget it.

The email sending outfit told me the DKIM is installed. So here goes. I will try to resend the blog post, which, appropriately, is about AI. Which reminds me, this being the presidential election season, of an exchange between Calvin Coolidge and his wife, who had stayed home that Sunday while he attended church. She asked what the sermon was about, and he replied, “Sin.” She: “What did he say about sin?” Coolidge: “He was against it.”

Now don’t get the wrong idea. I wasn’t around when it happened; I only read about it. Sheesh!

Please don’t ask me about AI. All I know is it stands for artificial intelligence. That’s as intelligent an answer I can give. For all I know, it means pseudo-intellectual, but I don’t think that’s what the tech geniuses – well, had in mind.

Herewith is that blog post redux:

Alternative Intelligence seems to be infiltrating just about everything, and Goldman Sachs has predicted that 300,000 million full-time jobs eventually will be lost to this computerized intelligence system, better known as AI. It’s sweeping the globe, and some experts predict it will necessitate a government program of Universal Basic Income for most people. Scary stuff, and writers are not exempt.

Indeed, a book marketing service had AI rewrite the description on Amazon of my novel Blood on Their Hands. I don’t much like it – overblown, flowery and lacking punch – and intend to change it (if I can figure out the technology).

In literature, should AI replace authors? Similarly, should it be used to design book covers?

Matt Stone, the CEO of book cover design firm 100 Covers, thinks not. Obviously, he has a stake in limiting AI in the publishing industry. But that doesn’t mean his opinion has to be wrong. And I, as an author, also am affected, but think I have valid reasons to oppose an AI intrusion. Stone echoed my concerns. Here is what he said, or wrote (not using AI).

“Listen, succeeding in publishing has never been about quantity. It’s about quality. Those who write something special cash in big, and those who don’t find a devastating amount of failure in this industry. It’s a HARD industry. There are probably more pro athletes than pro writers (full-timers making more in royalties than a manager at Buc-ee’s).”

Stop right there. That’s the only thing I disagree with Stone about. A book marketing expert – I forgot hiser (his or her) name – said a while ago that the best books aren’t the biggest sellers. My books are testament to that. Murder in Palm Beach has sold a lot better than Blood on Their Hands (cover designed by 100 Covers), a more riveting read but with racism as the dominant theme. Whites are the majority of readers, and most whites voted for Donald Trump in 2020. What does that tell you about their sentiments? However, the big majority of those who read Blood loved it, as witness the 4.3-star Amazon rating.

Stone continues, “It’s for that reason that I’m not real high on A.I. Unless it can have game-changing impacts on the quality of your writing, then it’s probably not that useful. And if it does have a big positive impact on the quality of your writing, is that really ethical? Did you actually write it or did a machine? Do people want to read the thoughts and ideas and creativity of machines or other humans? This brings up real existential questions about the author-reader relationship and the industry in general.

“I’m all about a slave army of machines, computers, and robots automating everything. I don’t care about anyone losing their ‘job.’ I hate jobs and haven’t had one in more than 15 years. I’ve written a series about how to quit your job!

“But I’m NOT about automating art. The whole idea of art is expressing something from human to human that is meaningful and impactful. Some books are art. Some aren’t really. But if you’re looking for shortcuts by using A.I., you may be in the wrong industry altogether.”

What he’s saying is that inanimate things don’t possess emotions. That’s the job of writers. And emotions are what life is all about: fear, anger, anxiety, sadness, excitement, boredom, surprise – love.