No doubt, but to understand how something sells, it’s better to look at how it’s bought than how it’s made. See McDonald’s for further info. Unlikely to survive. ChatGPT, Claude, etc. are just the beginning. We’re now seeing more advanced AI tools being developed for specific jobs. Incumbents in mature industries are often slow at responding to radical change.
When I object to something I like to do my due dilligience before I form an opinion. The cucumber article was non fiction LoL and as a keen gardener I know a LOT about growing cucumbers. The article was good. Yes, I am ashamed to say I was tempted but my morale compass told me otherwise. On another forum there is an invite only forum workshop to explore AI capabilites for people who support it ... in my position I felt it important to join. From memory, because I'm not going to log back in to check, some people were considering/have used AI. I was part of that group. And yes, writing in the style of a particular author was discussed. Namely because you can train AI to write in your style. AI might work for some areas of non fiction if you fact check. Fiction ... could have some fun writing a sex scene. No, just joking. I would rather eat cheesy sock than use AI .
Well, how something is made is directly related to how it is bought. Like I mentioned earlier this is now something that has been worked into contracts when you sell something to publishers. I don't see any radical change happening. Writers will always write stories themselves. And anyone who wants to be an actual writer will have to learn how to write stories without using AI. If they can't do that, well, I don't imagine they will have much success and being a writer probably just isn't in the cards for them. This industry has been and always will be hard and the competition has always been fierce. That's nothing new. Most if not all reputable publishers are not interested in creative writing made from AI. And, honestly, I don't see anyone using AI as having any kind of leg up.
When you read a good article you by someone else are you ever tempted to pass it off as your own? I mean basically it's the same thing.
Absolutely not! NEVER. No way. But people don't consider AI as plagiarism and that's exactly why I never used it.
Many people in the industry do consider using AI plagiarism. I read something that referred to AI (LLMs) as "plagiarism machines." These LLMs were trained on works they did not have permission to use and do not give credit to where things are coming from. Passing off something as your own that isn't yours is still very wrong no matter if you are lifting it from somebody else or one of the LLMs spit it out for you and whether readers are aware of it or not. I'm not trying to harp on you personally. I know you did not use the article AI created. I was just trying to make a point in general.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. I can't remember a technology failing that dramatically cut the time and money needed to produce something. All it takes is one Amazon to challenge an institution that was once considered unassailable--brick and mortar retail in this case--to shift an entire industry. What I see happening is editors using AI assist to generate their own slush pile. Give the technology some time to develop, and they will winnow that slush into something highly focused. Then the human editors refine the manuscripts exactly as they do now. I'm just making up numbers here, but if a publisher pays 5 editors to get 24 manuscripts in publishable form now, what's the difference between sifting through 500 human slush entries or 500,000 AI produced ones? Moreover, as the technology advances, they can produce a highly focused slushed that targets exactly what they're looking for. Like Lesbian Vampire Fiction in a Cyberpunk setting in the style of Tom Robbins. Rather than wait for the 3 or 4 submissions that might come close, they can instantly create thousands and edit those into publishable form, just as they do now. That's what I worry about. Like all technological advances, it's not the bosses at the top of the production chain that suffer, it's the workers displaced/replaced below. And those publishers @deadrats who claim they will never use AI or ever compromise their integrity are full of absolute shit. They're worried about the plagiarism blowback at the moment. They don't want to publish anything that might be injuncted once the legal dust settles. And all that legal shit will get resolved, leaving the tech companies a few hundred million short but poised to make billions in the future. Once that happens, the publishers who claim integrity now will be leading the AI charge. They'll feel as if they have to. They're already verging on bankruptcy, whacking their staffs, reducing the writing rooms, trying to do more than less. Go ask the horse and buggy, the typewriter, the land line phone, and mom and pop hardware store how this is going to play out. Sorry for the rant, but I've been hot/bothered/disillusioned/triggered about modern life and progress lately.
I just don't think the writing and publishing industry is doomed because of AI. Not at all, IMO. In recent years, publishers have really made strides to include marginalized voices. What people have to say and write is important. What AI spits out is not important and is nobody's voice regardless if it can churn out something in the style of any writer. I do think publishers care about that. Not everything is just about the bottom line. Cutting out writers would be just ridiculous for a publisher to do. And as a big reader, I have no interest in ever reading an AI generated book now or in the future.
Who says they're doomed? They'll make more money than they ever have before. And people will probably read more than they have before too, because the product will be more ubiquitous and personally targeted. Shit, for the right price, you tell the publisher exactly what you want and they'll produce it for you. How much is that service worth? Everything you love and nothing you hate. Everyone always talks about the perfect fully optimized reader. Now, everyone gets to be that everytime.
Yeah, this is pretty much where we're headed. So many people have already retreated to their bubbles and block/ignore anything they might consider objectionable or challenges their worldview. Sometimes it's almost like these people you're talking to must be from a different planet. They simply experience an alternate reality. There must be a few companies already heavily invested in developing what you described. Have a customer fill out a detailed questionnaire, say 15 minutes, if their attention span allows it. And bam, here's the greatest novel ever written, for you, you special, special person, with all your existing views being reinforced in every single paragraph. If this isn't in development already, get your ass on Shark Tank/Dragon's Den.
Keep in mind that the consumer usually doesn't know what he wants. This talk is about exploiting AI for trend chasing, not trend-making. Admittedly the money part of the industry is more former than latter, but that leads to large financial failures again and again. It's unsustainable. You can't let Homer Simpson design a car.
I meant that quality isn't always the main factor in buying. AI doesn't need to be good to deprive real writers of an income, it just needs to be good enough to satisfy the average reader. The big change isn't really about writing itself, but more about the forces which affect writing as a commercial activity. It’s just supply and demand. It's not all bad though. As writing becomes evermore a commodity, I guess there'll always be opportunities for writers of rare voice to prosper. Just as people are prepared to pay a premium for the handmade jewelry or furniture of a respected artisan.
Who is this "average reader" who is looking for just "good enough?" I think readers are looking for more from a story than "good enough" whatever that means. If readers didn't care about quality of writing in addition to a good story (neither of which I believe AI will ever do better than a good human writer with a good story) then wouldn't all novels sell pretty much equally that are similar in topics or genre? And that's just not the case. You don't have to have a rare voice to have a unique voice, story, and style. And a lot more goes into publishing than just supply and demand. When you buy a book you are also going to invest your time to read it. And I think all readers want to go into a book and finish a book without feeling like their time was wasted. If readers knew exactly what they wanted to read and didn't care about quality or where it was coming from, well, they could just use AI to spit out a story and never have to buy another book ever again. But it's not the reader who is using AI for this purpose and it's not how AI is being marketed. AI is being marketed as a so-called "tool" for wannabe writers as basically a way to cut corners and do very little work. Real writers aren't going anywhere. Their books are not going to become a commodity where people pay up for human-written work. There will always be writers who write without using AI, and I believe they will always be in the majority at least when it comes to any kind of success.
I just came across this video with Stephen Fry reading a letter from Nick Cave. I totally agree with the sentiment, and for that matter, about using singers using autotune.
It's not so much that readers don't care for quality, rather people have different ways of evaluating quality, and different standards about the level of quality they're willing to accept. Not everyone has the refined faculties of the professional writer, for example. I suppose, quality isn't the only factor in how books sell. It can be challenging even to discover worthy titles amidst the glut. Perhaps this will become yet more challenging with the next step change in supply from the adoption of AI-infused writing tools, posing an even greater hurdle to writers' professional success. The lessons of disruptive innovation are everywhere, and you've highlighted two important aspects: AI's technological advancement and how it's presented to the market. Both will evolve in ways we might not anticipate. Take Henry Ford, for example; his innovation wasn't the car but the production process that made it more affordable and accessible. Similarly, the internet was initially seen as a tool for academic resource sharing, yet it has evolved to be something quite different! Change happens rapidly, now faster than ever. It took sixty years for automobiles to reach 50 million users. ChatGPT achieved double that adoption in only two months. When we narrowly define something, like perceiving AI as a productivity tool for writers, we risk missing the broader opportunities and challenges it brings. The people driving the development of AI are not thinking in these narrow terms. They're devising novel ways to leverage AI in platforms and ecosystems, combining it with other powerful technologies, and developing new business models to realise its value. This is why established institutions flounder. They can't adapt. The publishing industry is a frequent case study in this regard, having responded poorly to the internet. Now its environment is changing again, even more rapidly. It's inevitable that the writing profession will be altered by AI — altered inconceivably but profoundly. So, I agree with you kind of: Real writers aren't going anywhere. Alas, the world around them is.
Right. The likes of Steven King have nothing to worry about. But most of us (including myself) are not in that league. What will happen to millions and millions of middling writers of books, magazines (print and online) articles, instruction manuals, etc..? On another subject: Google query: "book sales for each year" Result: a bunch of links, including this one: https://wordsrated.com/book-sales-statistics/ Chat GPT query: "list book sales number for each year between 2000 and 2018" ( I accounted for the fact Chat GPT stopped dumpster-diving the web about 2 years ago) Chat GPT reply: (you don't need to read all of it) I'm sorry for any confusion, but I don't have access to specific book sales figures for each year between 2000 and 2018. Detailed and accurate global book sales data for each year can be challenging to obtain, as it often involves proprietary information from publishers and retailers. To get precise figures for book sales during that period, you may want to refer to industry reports, market research studies, or the financial reports of major publishing companies. Organizations like Nielsen BookScan, which tracks book sales in various countries, may also provide some insights. Keep in mind that even with these sources, getting exact and comprehensive data for every year may be difficult.. . . ...blah blah blah
I suppose the pre-AI assumption is that the number of professional writers in society (ratio) is supposed to perpetually increase? This just occurred to me today. How may are there supposed to be?
