<\/p>\n
Barnes & Noble was turning a page on the chain\u2019s history of declining sales<\/a>, but recent comments have stirred bad blood for the bookseller.<\/p>\n James Daunt, the chief executive credited with breathing new life into the retailer,<\/a> is clarifying the store\u2019s stance on stocking its shelves with AI-written books. <\/p>\n The controversy stems from Daunt\u2019s Monday appearance on \u201cToday<\/a>\u201d with Jenna Bush Hager. In a clip from the interview that went viral, Daunt said, \u201cI have actually no problem selling any book, as long as it doesn\u2019t masquerade or pretend to be something that it isn\u2019t. So, as long as an AI-written book says it\u2019s an AI-written book, then we will stock them,\u201d Daunt said. <\/p>\n By Wednesday, thousands of calls to boycott the bookseller had flooded social media. <\/p>\n Kathlin Finn, a writer and former employee of the chain, posted on social media<\/a>, writing, \u201cHey Barnes & Not Noble, I worked for you and have supported you, but your latest AI decision is extremely disappointing. I will not be shopping or promoting B&N unless you change your AI policy.\u201d<\/p>\n Author Cristin Bishara wrote<\/a>, \u201cAs an author this [is] the most depressing news. I\u2019ve been saying for a long time that this was coming. People told me I was overreacting. And I had a feeling it would start with a cute round table at the front of a B&N.\u201d<\/p>\n Another social media user added, \u201cThe Barnes & Noble CEO saying they\u2019ll stock AI generated books as long as they\u2019re labeled and aren\u2019t \u2018ripping off somebody else\u2019 is wild considering all generative AI is ripping off someone else.\u201d<\/p>\n Daunt told The Times that the wave of backlash is based on misinterpretations of what he said, and that only a \u201chighly edited version\u201d of what the bookseller \u201cactually said\u201d had been aired.<\/p>\n In an emailed statement, he said the bookseller does not sell AI books, \u201cas far as we are aware.\u201d Barnes & Noble \u201cdemand[s] that publishers label any books that are AI generated,\u201d and the chain takes \u201cactive measures to exclude all AI generated books.\u201d <\/p>\n Daunt further stated that Barnes & Noble \u201cwill sell AI generated books if there is clear demand\u201d and not \u201cban reputable books published by reputable publishers, even if AI generated, should these be published, labeled and there be clear evidence of customer demand.\u201d <\/p>\n He also said that the retailer thinks it\u2019s \u201cvery unlikely\u201d that there will be customer demand for AI-generated books or that reputable publishers will publish them.<\/p>\n \u201cThe argument is nuanced, and perhaps over nuanced, but there are important principles that have to be balanced and I believe we do so as sensibly and thoughtfully as is possible,\u201d he said. \u201cBook banning is a clear and present danger, so we are very careful with demands to ban any books\u201d while also remaining vigilant \u201cnot to sell AI generated books that masquerade to be by real authors.\u201d<\/p>\n Last year, Daunt spoke with BBC<\/a> on the issue of AI in publishing and bookselling and said that there\u2019s a huge proliferation of AI-generated content, and \u201cmost of it is not books that we should be selling.\u201d He told the broadcaster that, as a bookseller, the company sells what publishers publish and that he\u2019d be surprised by efforts to put forth an \u201cAI-generated piece of nonsense\u201d but that, ultimately, the decision on reading material would lie with the reader. <\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t dictate, and we don\u2019t dictate around politics or any other particular issues around books,\u201d he said. \u201cWe leave it up to the reader to decide.\u201d<\/p>\n In June 2025, more than 70 authors issued a call to action<\/a> to big-five publishers Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, and Macmillan, asking the companies to pledge that they will never release books that were created by machines. Authors Lauren Groff<\/a>, R.F. Kuang<\/a>, Emma Straub<\/a> and Emily Henry<\/a> were among the petitioners. <\/p>\n \u201cAt its simplest level, our job as artists is to respond to the human experience. But the art we make is a commodity, and our world wants things quickly, cheaply, and on demand,\u201d the letter read. <\/p>\n \u201cWe are rushing toward a future where our novels, our biographies, our poems and our memoirs \u2014 our records of the human experience \u2014 are \u2018written\u2019 by artificial intelligence models that, by definition, cannot know what it is to be human. To bleed, or starve, or love. …<\/p>\n \u201cEvery time a prompt is entered into AI, the language that bot uses to respond was created in part through the synthesis of art that we, the undersigned, have spent our careers crafting. Taken without our consent, without payment, without even the courtesy of acknowledgment.\u201d<\/p>\n In March, Hachette pulled \u201cShy Girl\u201d from publication after widespread allegations that the horror novel appeared to be AI-generated and was swiftly scrubbed from Amazon and the Hachette website. The book\u2019s author, Mia Ballard, denied that she had relied on AI to pen the book but said an acquaintance she had hired to edit the novel used AI.<\/p>\n