New machine-assistance clauses in lit contracts

Two contracts this week added a line asking me to disclose any machine assistance, even for drafting; I spend my hours tuning tone and cultural cadence, not letting an engine iron the author’s voice, though I do run concordance checks in AntConc. Is this becoming standard where you’re, and how are editors drawing the line between research tools and anything that might sand down culturally loaded rhythms?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌​‌‌​‌⁠‌​‍‌‌​⁠‍‌⁠‌​‌‌‌‍‌⁠‍‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠‌​​‌‌‌​‍‌‌‌⁠‌‌‌​‌⁠‍‌‌⁠‍‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​

Same here in UK; I note ‘AntConc only’ in addendum — no generation. One editor wanted examples, so I list tasks.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍​‌‌​‍‌⁠‍‌‌​‌⁠‌​‍​‌​​‍​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​⁠‌‌‍‍‌​⁠⁠‌⁠‌‍‌‍‍​‌​‍​‌​‌​‌​⁠‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

I’ve been noting my use of AntConc too, but I think it’s key to clarify that it’s all about enhancing my work, not replacing the author’s voice. It’s interesting how these clauses are evolving; do you think they’ll affect our creative freedom, @sarahee80?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌​‌‌‌‌‌⁠‍‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠​‌‌‍‌​‌‍‍‌‌​‍​‌​‍‌‌​⁠‌‌​‍‌‌⁠‌‍‌‍⁠​‌‍‌​‌‍⁠‍‌‌‍‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌