My daughter complained, last year, about a book she bought for my grandson. It was human-written, had a cute cover and premise, but was very poorly written. She was livid. "THIS got published by a real publisher!" she cried. I checked. That "real publisher" bore the same name as the author. I'm not sure whether AI-generated writing will make things better or worse, for writers. I'm not sure that returning to the old model - submitting to the gatekeepers of the Big 5 and hoping the publishing gods smile down upon us is quite the answer, either.
What I do know is that readers - especially children, since they are still learning what constitutes good writing - deserve better than this. They don't deserve to personally LIKE every story they read. I've read many I didn't enjoy. I wouldn't return them for a refund; I don't deserve that. But I do deserve to be respected enough that the writer put some effort into writing a coherent story using proper spelling and grammar. And sometimes, much as I hate to say it, AI can do it better than some of these folks who just thought writing was an easy way to make a buck on the internet. THEY deserve to be put out of business by AI.
But THIS is what's actually happening "out there" - https://fortune.com/2023/02/22/flood-chatgpt-ai-generated-content-science-fiction-writing-clarkesworld-stops-submissions - and much as SOME writers absolutely deserve this, they are ruining it for those who have always played by the rules. (Not that there was all that much to "ruin" honestly - it's always been an awful landscape out there. Almost as if people love the mythos of the starving artist more than they will ever love the artist while the artist lives.)
Ah, well. Here’s the thing. My initial response to AI writing was “hell to the no!” But now, I’m not so sure. At the moment, we have a multitude of “content creators” producing a mountain of what amounts to the same thing. They don’t have an original thought in their heads. They copy other people’s article ideas and outright plagiarize. Cooking blogs are a great example. Every New York Times recipe with legs has been redone ad infinitum. I once googled “10 job interview tips” and got over 2 billion nearly identical hits. So let the real robots write the stuff people are just phoning in anyway. Talented writers who can produce what the computer can’t may suddenly be in demand. Maybe we can in turn demand higher pay. We can dream, right?
I want nothing to do with ChatGPT or anything related to it. Authorship should always be treated as a venture done entirely or primarily by human beings, and Amazon needs to tighten its belt on allowing machine-made materials to be distributed. Some fiction magazines I know of are reevaluating their submission processes to deal with this, so it's not like there's no precedent.
The world keeps on turning…..new methods, ideas are going to continue unfolding daily…..just do what you are passion about and do it well… and don’t worry or focus on what others are doing or trying to do….and All will be well☑️☑️ Stay Blessed
It’s a super slippery slope. Soon, school kids will be handing in AI written papers, and it will be continued into college. Why learn stuff on your own when a computer can do it for you?
We’re already a culture who seems to not want to think for ourselves. This makes it even easier. Why create art or write a book in your own? (That was rhetorical. ) Many jobs have been taken away by computers, venturing into the arts feels similar.
All that said, it’s human emotion and passion that make the best art. It’s tough to sell books on Amazon. I know firsthand. I even worked on building an audience first. It’s not easy to attract kids or their busy parents to online books. I can’t imagine it will be any easier for the ChatGPT books to attract an audience, other than some may sell as novelties of new technology.
Wow. I just unloaded there. Guess I have some strong feelings about this that I had not given much thought to.
ChatGPT is to writers as are the Asian "knock-off" producers of brand name products for very cheap prices. Even in the 18th century, first performances of work by famous composers were attended by transcriptionists that would copy down the music, note for note, and have sheet music for sale within a few days. As humans we have to deal with parasites like other animals, but our parasites are all too often our fellow humans. I suspect that in these early days the overall mood of the public will be one of awe at how far AI has come. Once the first dangerously bad medical texts appear, the first rapid weight loss diets leading to death, or other things that AI will almost certainly get tragically wrong, will the cry go out for something to be done. As a software developer, I believe that hacks will be developed to trick AI content scrapers into collecting content that is deliberately made worthless. For example, sprinkle nonsense in white text with a white background in an article. Humans won't see it, but AI will, at least until it has been modified to ignore it. The community of writers would do well to share information about their work that has been plagiarized, by whom, and where. Anything that will reduce the profit from theft will help.
Another reason such books might sell better as children's books is that marketing for children's books is a little different, since the person who pays for the book is often different from the person who reads the book. Many people who are looking for gifts will purchase a children's book which looks cool without thinking too much about the quality of the writing.
Setting aside the issues around AIs training on copyrighted works, I'm okay with ChatGPT books existing and being sold as long as they are marked as such, and in some cases (such as technical manuals) I can imagine them being a net benefit. (Those technical manuals would still need to be checked by humans, but machine learning might make the process easier).
I wonder how ChatGPT would respond to asking why users should/should not be allowed to publish ChatGPT generated books under their own names. Also, is it fair for those books to compete against human authors, possibly taking away writing jobs?
I don't see ChatGPT as an existential crisis for writers interested in quality. Going froward, writers will be paid more to think while AI handles the "doing" (basic research, drumming up headlines, etc.). I heard Chat GPT compared to an intern recently, and I think that's an apt comparison...for now, anyway.
Now if you're someone cranking out boilerplate hotel reviews for .01/word, you might be in trouble. But that's another story.
As an editor on Medium, I haven't seen it creep into the submission queue a whole lot. I'm sure part of that is down to the stable of writers at my pub. Most of them are old school, like the idea of chiseling away at a heartfelt piece until it's ready. My guess is the "well lit" pub is welcoming AI generated stories with open arms. I don't see the good dr. putting up any guardrails, but am happy to be corrected.
My daughter complained, last year, about a book she bought for my grandson. It was human-written, had a cute cover and premise, but was very poorly written. She was livid. "THIS got published by a real publisher!" she cried. I checked. That "real publisher" bore the same name as the author. I'm not sure whether AI-generated writing will make things better or worse, for writers. I'm not sure that returning to the old model - submitting to the gatekeepers of the Big 5 and hoping the publishing gods smile down upon us is quite the answer, either.
What I do know is that readers - especially children, since they are still learning what constitutes good writing - deserve better than this. They don't deserve to personally LIKE every story they read. I've read many I didn't enjoy. I wouldn't return them for a refund; I don't deserve that. But I do deserve to be respected enough that the writer put some effort into writing a coherent story using proper spelling and grammar. And sometimes, much as I hate to say it, AI can do it better than some of these folks who just thought writing was an easy way to make a buck on the internet. THEY deserve to be put out of business by AI.
But THIS is what's actually happening "out there" - https://fortune.com/2023/02/22/flood-chatgpt-ai-generated-content-science-fiction-writing-clarkesworld-stops-submissions - and much as SOME writers absolutely deserve this, they are ruining it for those who have always played by the rules. (Not that there was all that much to "ruin" honestly - it's always been an awful landscape out there. Almost as if people love the mythos of the starving artist more than they will ever love the artist while the artist lives.)
Ah, well. Here’s the thing. My initial response to AI writing was “hell to the no!” But now, I’m not so sure. At the moment, we have a multitude of “content creators” producing a mountain of what amounts to the same thing. They don’t have an original thought in their heads. They copy other people’s article ideas and outright plagiarize. Cooking blogs are a great example. Every New York Times recipe with legs has been redone ad infinitum. I once googled “10 job interview tips” and got over 2 billion nearly identical hits. So let the real robots write the stuff people are just phoning in anyway. Talented writers who can produce what the computer can’t may suddenly be in demand. Maybe we can in turn demand higher pay. We can dream, right?
I want nothing to do with ChatGPT or anything related to it. Authorship should always be treated as a venture done entirely or primarily by human beings, and Amazon needs to tighten its belt on allowing machine-made materials to be distributed. Some fiction magazines I know of are reevaluating their submission processes to deal with this, so it's not like there's no precedent.
The world keeps on turning…..new methods, ideas are going to continue unfolding daily…..just do what you are passion about and do it well… and don’t worry or focus on what others are doing or trying to do….and All will be well☑️☑️ Stay Blessed
It’s a super slippery slope. Soon, school kids will be handing in AI written papers, and it will be continued into college. Why learn stuff on your own when a computer can do it for you?
We’re already a culture who seems to not want to think for ourselves. This makes it even easier. Why create art or write a book in your own? (That was rhetorical. ) Many jobs have been taken away by computers, venturing into the arts feels similar.
All that said, it’s human emotion and passion that make the best art. It’s tough to sell books on Amazon. I know firsthand. I even worked on building an audience first. It’s not easy to attract kids or their busy parents to online books. I can’t imagine it will be any easier for the ChatGPT books to attract an audience, other than some may sell as novelties of new technology.
Wow. I just unloaded there. Guess I have some strong feelings about this that I had not given much thought to.
Thanks for making me think. On my own. 😀
ChatGPT is to writers as are the Asian "knock-off" producers of brand name products for very cheap prices. Even in the 18th century, first performances of work by famous composers were attended by transcriptionists that would copy down the music, note for note, and have sheet music for sale within a few days. As humans we have to deal with parasites like other animals, but our parasites are all too often our fellow humans. I suspect that in these early days the overall mood of the public will be one of awe at how far AI has come. Once the first dangerously bad medical texts appear, the first rapid weight loss diets leading to death, or other things that AI will almost certainly get tragically wrong, will the cry go out for something to be done. As a software developer, I believe that hacks will be developed to trick AI content scrapers into collecting content that is deliberately made worthless. For example, sprinkle nonsense in white text with a white background in an article. Humans won't see it, but AI will, at least until it has been modified to ignore it. The community of writers would do well to share information about their work that has been plagiarized, by whom, and where. Anything that will reduce the profit from theft will help.
“It’s pretty easy to bash Amazon on that one.“ It sure is.
Holly’s comments are spot on
Another reason such books might sell better as children's books is that marketing for children's books is a little different, since the person who pays for the book is often different from the person who reads the book. Many people who are looking for gifts will purchase a children's book which looks cool without thinking too much about the quality of the writing.
Setting aside the issues around AIs training on copyrighted works, I'm okay with ChatGPT books existing and being sold as long as they are marked as such, and in some cases (such as technical manuals) I can imagine them being a net benefit. (Those technical manuals would still need to be checked by humans, but machine learning might make the process easier).
I wonder how ChatGPT would respond to asking why users should/should not be allowed to publish ChatGPT generated books under their own names. Also, is it fair for those books to compete against human authors, possibly taking away writing jobs?
Another article!?😀
I don't see ChatGPT as an existential crisis for writers interested in quality. Going froward, writers will be paid more to think while AI handles the "doing" (basic research, drumming up headlines, etc.). I heard Chat GPT compared to an intern recently, and I think that's an apt comparison...for now, anyway.
Now if you're someone cranking out boilerplate hotel reviews for .01/word, you might be in trouble. But that's another story.
As an editor on Medium, I haven't seen it creep into the submission queue a whole lot. I'm sure part of that is down to the stable of writers at my pub. Most of them are old school, like the idea of chiseling away at a heartfelt piece until it's ready. My guess is the "well lit" pub is welcoming AI generated stories with open arms. I don't see the good dr. putting up any guardrails, but am happy to be corrected.