I'll tell you what...I'm just about done with Medium. I don't trust the AI situation, and my earnings are down 80% this month. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. Why should I keep giving them content?
I hear you, Lisa. I'm down this month too. Views are in the toilet. I know jessica wildfire and umair have both left. Whether people like them or not, they had big followings before they left.
That's a powerful "heads up" Linda, thanks. So if this A.I. invasion is inevitable, as it seems why can't we as writers "throw a wrench" in the pudding as a manner of speaking? Pepper your writing with a selected, or a few selected irrelevant words that to humans make no sense at all when you're reading the work, but A.I. will not know that those "word mines" are there to thwart their leaning, they will include our stupid words and spit them out in A.I. produced work hahaha. Someone could even write a program designed to insert these words into your writing with the click of a button? And you could put a note of warning above your work informing the reader of A.I. buster words, maybe under your subtitle in parentheses? I don't think it's a good idea for fiction, but non-fiction it may work for and I'm not sure how most readers will react, maybe think it's even funny reading, or maybe just irritates them. Hey I"m just brainstorming, don't pay any attention if this is too stupid to even think about, but it seems to me writers have to take matters into their own hands rather than just hoping platforms will protect them.
I think the best way for writers to protect themselves is to speak out. Reply to the posts. Write about it. Because ruining the writing experience for our readers doesn't feel like a solution. If platforms want us to create content that readers pay them for, they need to listen to how we feel. And if it turns out I am the minority and most people want to be part of an AI buffet, then it's on me to remove myself. You know?
Yes, you are right. It isn't the writer who should compromise. And I'm hoping you are in the majority of writers who feel this way. I don't like the A.I. take-over and I'm not a professional so I imagine pros like yourself have a lot more to lose, and I'd like to be in that group in the future. Keep the fight Linda.
Well. On a different platform, anyway. I have not dug into Substack's stance on AI accessing their content so I don't know their take yet. But will probably dive in soon.
I’ll be blunt- you and I know everything gets scraped the second it hits the net. Google has its own AI, Bard. You think they are limiting it? No way.
The second thing is your belief that Tony pays any attention to anything not to his direct benefit. He cut our earnings drastically and simultaneously announced record earnings to his board. I worked in tech long enough to know they know the AI thing is completely ridiculous. You don’t put that horse back in the barn. Sorry to be a cynic but that’s my nature. M
I don't know where you got the idea that I think any CEO pays attention to anything not to his direct benefit. lol. Here's what is to Tony's benefit. Keeping people writing enough decent content that readers will fork over $5/month to read it.
Everywhere you have people, there's a wide variety from blind optimism on one side and utter cynicism on the other. The truth is usually somewhere between those two ends. There are people who have won lawsuits against AI taking their work without consent, credit or compensation. Not enough. But some. They are probably closer to the cynical end of the spectrum than the blind optimism side because believing it will "just work out" almost never does. The only reason everything gets scraped the minute it's published is because laws have failed to keep up. They're laws. Not horses. They can be changed. But it takes pressure from the people creating said content to make those changes happen. Which is why I write about this stuff.
I appreciate your efforts but the internet is global and laws are not. If our bots are not learning from us, China’s are. And every hacker in the universe. As for Medium’s motivations as a company, m’eh. If popular writers are so valuable, why are they blatantly screwing us? Try reading story stats- they are meaningless now because they exclude so much info. I loved that place for so long and worked hard to get anywhere and just as I was starting to see viable money they changed the rules. The content certainly has not gotten better. I don’t blame Jessica or Umair for leaving. Messengers bearing bad news were not welcome, even if thousands of us read them. Tony as much as told me to get lost. I will not forget that. I now have three substacks and they are starting to surpass my Medium readership in revenue. And I enjoy every minute of it because they are mine. Everything changes.
I don't blame Jessica or Umair, either. And I'm really glad to hear they are starting to surpass Medium in revenue. The problem is, there's no context there because I don't know if you're talking $50, $500 or $5000 revenue TO surpass. And it's none of my business. But I've heard a lot of people say they're doing "better" on Substack without quantifying what that means.
One note, though. I suspect you are reading more into my words than I'm putting there. At no time do I think Medium sees writers as valuable. We are the product for sale. If I leave, there will be another me. In their eyes. Their goal is to make the site profitable. That much is true. Value for individual people is a different topic. ;)
I read that post, got the email, went back to the post to answer the question, and realized I'd already read the post and as a near-Luddite, it had made my eyeballs spin. So I tiptoed away. But thanks to your fortifying nudge, I'll go back to it now and answer the damn questions, following the same rule I do for financial machinations suggested to me: if I don't understand it, the answer is always no.
Somehow the 10% commission to writers for allowing the bot to come a raiding, reads like the Fox offering a 10% commission on all sales from the chickens it stole from your henhouse - if you leave the gate unlocked. We would be accepting a payment now but the likelihood that our own words will impede our sales in the future. Life and all related decisions would be so simple if money wasn't involved.
lol on the fox, joe. My issue is that offering everyone a blanket 10% increase in pay does not account for differences in how much content is being scraped. And the company paying Medium for access is not paying that way. Just an example... a new writer has 10 posts and knocked it out of the park this month and made $2500 on a boosted post. She would get a $250 bonus. A long timer with 1000 posts who makes $2500 also gets a $250 bonus. But one person got 10 posts scraped and the other got 1000 posts scraped. Fair? I think not.
I see your point, Linda, that would make a big difference. I responded with NO to both questions. I just don't like what AI is trying to do - making lots of money for no payment, while most writers here on Medium struggle to earn enough each month for a meal at Olive Garden. As long as Google and similar companies are treated like an organized religion- hands off - then we'll have issues. But we do need to keep fighting for what's ours. Cheers.
That's one possibility, for sure. The reality is there are probably bots scraping the site now as we speak. Medium is blocking one AI bot. I'm sure there's more than one AI bot. So I could see them saying well, if AI companies offer compensation, should we take it? But they need our permission because we own our writing.
I loved Walter's comment. I'm a poet and, as a breed, we tend to think about death. BUT regarding AI - I just wish it'd go away. I become an ostrich. Thank goodness for people like you - unafraid to stare the bloodsuckers in the face
My ex used to ask me why I always have to be the shit disturber in the room. I guess that's why he's my ex. lol. I figure one day I'm going to die whether I ask the hard questions or not, so might as well ask them. But still, I wish I didn't have to. Ugh.
I love it that you stir the shit. Your article informed me of something I was ostriching from, as others are, as well - we need to pay attention to it, not hide.
I say a firm NO to allowing our work to be used. As you say, there's more than one AI, as well as the ones from other countries. If I could put some kind of lock on my writing, I would.
I'm also a professional artist, and dread the day when I see some AI art out there that looks like I did it, but didn't, and there won't be a damn thing can do about it.
I really appreciated how you showed us the details, and laid it out so plainly in your post - thank you.
I did a semi-satirical article on this topic for The Writing Cooperative not long ago. I simply lack the technical understanding (good for you for providing the link to the line of code and being able to interpret it). My title was "Death and AI Writing Are Things I Try Not to Think About." I meant it. They're both inevitable and I feel dwelling on them will only make me depressed. Thanks for this thoughtful article... maybe it's something I do need to contemplate a little more.
It is depressing, Walter. I work in tech. The part about tech that bothers me most is that too many people like to talk above everyone's heads. Most of it can be explained very simply. Not all, granted, but most. And I hate when people have discussions that leave out the parts people need to know and are not that hard to explain. I should write about it, but man I do not love it. I'm good at my job, but its not what I love. Writing is what I love. Now they are meeting in the ugliest possible way.
Somebody left a wise comment on my article. He said that the AI can only see what I wrote in the past. It can't predict what I'm going to write. I feel there's truth there. The whole reason I'm in the writing game is because of the excitement that comes when you make an intuitive leap. There's no analytical progression that can get you there. I'm glad that your background in tech gives you the knowledge to explain what's going on to the rest of us!
That is very true. AI can only read what you've written. But the past is measured in seconds. Once the door is open, AI can be your first reader on every new post. And I don't say that to be an alarmist, but because we need to be aware of that. Right now what sets me apart from ChatGPT is the way I use words. Feed it everything I write the minute I hit publish and what sets me apart? My brain, but no one pays me for that.
There's an AI out there (I wrote about it) that can write in the style of dead writers. ie: Write a paragraph about (blank) in the style of Hemingway. Or Kafka. Or whoever. All that's held AI back is that it learned on old data, not current writings. Do we want people to go into ChatGPT and write in the style of Walter Rhein or any one of us? I don't want to see that day come. It will. But I'd like to hold those gates closed as long as possible. Preferably until I'm dead. lol
"Why would Medium entertain the idea of letting AI train on stories they don’t even own the rights to?" -- Well they do own rights to everything on Medium. It's their platform, their audience, their members, their paywall, their algorithms. I don't understand why creators still post there when the company and investors make all the money and pays creators less than 10 percent of the share. Clearly, it's a VC-backed company that needs to make money.
Yet another thing that reinforces how much my earnings have dropped here. And how it's not likely to change. Thanks for showing how difficult it is to limit access to the bots. I'll go back and answer the question
That line of things you disallow to protect clients' websites-- is that line what we need to put on posts so they don't get AI'd?
If I use Grammarly, which I do for editing (when I agree with it), is that considered AI training?
I agree with a no until those factors you mentioned get addressed justly. Aside from the ethical issues which may not stop AI marching in faster than we can imagine, would AI work on Medium if people put in the titles AI generated-- so readers would be informed? Oh my goodness - no!--I just realized. Our Medium would be inundated with AI. I heard that Amazon put a limit on authors for three AI generated books a....day! And then people would try to modify how they justify their AI with euphemisms.
The line of code I put on client sites is not something we can add as writers. That's what Medium is talking about, essentially. Creating a program to allow every writer to say yes, allow my writing to be scraped by AI or no, do not. But with the number of user accounts on Medium, I am not convinced it would work reliably.
It's just a guess, my I think AI is still a discussion on Medium because Tony wants it to be, and on some level I think he's hoping we'll collectively change our minds.
I asked Tony (on that post) why he thinks it would be simple and straight forward. He replied to say it would require an agreeable partner. Here's the thing. Medium is blocking one AI bot. I would bet there's far more than one AI bot on the internet. I think it's a discussion because they know it's inevitable that AI bots will hit Medium. Probably are already. So if they find a partner who can manage it for them, maybe that's better than doing nothing at all.
The issue becomes the 3 c's. Credit, compensation and consent. Those are the issues in the courts. But here's the thing. Giving us a % increase over our current income is not the compensation Medium would be getting. It's a guestimate. Which means that ultimately Medium would be profiting off selling our work to AI bots. I am not okay with that. I am not okay with AI bots training on my work without my consent. But unless the laws change, there's not a damn thing I can do about that except stop writing. And that sucks.
I remember thinking the same things when I first read that email. Glad that fort now, the answer is no.
Also- where was this survey? I don't remember being asked my opinion, and I've been on Medium on four different accounts each over a year old. So that 92% is made up of how many people? Who got asked? If they're representing me and determining my future on Medium, I feel like I should know who they are in some capacity.
I just read everything. I've decided my "NO!" Will be in the form of leaving Medium for good. The exit that deletes every word I've written, including comments.
I've been wishing I could quit and focus on Substack. Now I will.
QUESTION. Is Substack also being targeted by AI? If so, I'm finished.
Thanks, Linda, and everyone who commented. I really appreciated this discussion being on Substack. I just hope I won't have to delete my account there, too.
I'll tell you what...I'm just about done with Medium. I don't trust the AI situation, and my earnings are down 80% this month. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. Why should I keep giving them content?
I hear you, Lisa. I'm down this month too. Views are in the toilet. I know jessica wildfire and umair have both left. Whether people like them or not, they had big followings before they left.
That's a powerful "heads up" Linda, thanks. So if this A.I. invasion is inevitable, as it seems why can't we as writers "throw a wrench" in the pudding as a manner of speaking? Pepper your writing with a selected, or a few selected irrelevant words that to humans make no sense at all when you're reading the work, but A.I. will not know that those "word mines" are there to thwart their leaning, they will include our stupid words and spit them out in A.I. produced work hahaha. Someone could even write a program designed to insert these words into your writing with the click of a button? And you could put a note of warning above your work informing the reader of A.I. buster words, maybe under your subtitle in parentheses? I don't think it's a good idea for fiction, but non-fiction it may work for and I'm not sure how most readers will react, maybe think it's even funny reading, or maybe just irritates them. Hey I"m just brainstorming, don't pay any attention if this is too stupid to even think about, but it seems to me writers have to take matters into their own hands rather than just hoping platforms will protect them.
I think the best way for writers to protect themselves is to speak out. Reply to the posts. Write about it. Because ruining the writing experience for our readers doesn't feel like a solution. If platforms want us to create content that readers pay them for, they need to listen to how we feel. And if it turns out I am the minority and most people want to be part of an AI buffet, then it's on me to remove myself. You know?
Yes, you are right. It isn't the writer who should compromise. And I'm hoping you are in the majority of writers who feel this way. I don't like the A.I. take-over and I'm not a professional so I imagine pros like yourself have a lot more to lose, and I'd like to be in that group in the future. Keep the fight Linda.
Yet another ethical conundrum I no longer have to deal with...
Well. On a different platform, anyway. I have not dug into Substack's stance on AI accessing their content so I don't know their take yet. But will probably dive in soon.
I’ll be blunt- you and I know everything gets scraped the second it hits the net. Google has its own AI, Bard. You think they are limiting it? No way.
The second thing is your belief that Tony pays any attention to anything not to his direct benefit. He cut our earnings drastically and simultaneously announced record earnings to his board. I worked in tech long enough to know they know the AI thing is completely ridiculous. You don’t put that horse back in the barn. Sorry to be a cynic but that’s my nature. M
I don't know where you got the idea that I think any CEO pays attention to anything not to his direct benefit. lol. Here's what is to Tony's benefit. Keeping people writing enough decent content that readers will fork over $5/month to read it.
Everywhere you have people, there's a wide variety from blind optimism on one side and utter cynicism on the other. The truth is usually somewhere between those two ends. There are people who have won lawsuits against AI taking their work without consent, credit or compensation. Not enough. But some. They are probably closer to the cynical end of the spectrum than the blind optimism side because believing it will "just work out" almost never does. The only reason everything gets scraped the minute it's published is because laws have failed to keep up. They're laws. Not horses. They can be changed. But it takes pressure from the people creating said content to make those changes happen. Which is why I write about this stuff.
I appreciate your efforts but the internet is global and laws are not. If our bots are not learning from us, China’s are. And every hacker in the universe. As for Medium’s motivations as a company, m’eh. If popular writers are so valuable, why are they blatantly screwing us? Try reading story stats- they are meaningless now because they exclude so much info. I loved that place for so long and worked hard to get anywhere and just as I was starting to see viable money they changed the rules. The content certainly has not gotten better. I don’t blame Jessica or Umair for leaving. Messengers bearing bad news were not welcome, even if thousands of us read them. Tony as much as told me to get lost. I will not forget that. I now have three substacks and they are starting to surpass my Medium readership in revenue. And I enjoy every minute of it because they are mine. Everything changes.
I don't blame Jessica or Umair, either. And I'm really glad to hear they are starting to surpass Medium in revenue. The problem is, there's no context there because I don't know if you're talking $50, $500 or $5000 revenue TO surpass. And it's none of my business. But I've heard a lot of people say they're doing "better" on Substack without quantifying what that means.
One note, though. I suspect you are reading more into my words than I'm putting there. At no time do I think Medium sees writers as valuable. We are the product for sale. If I leave, there will be another me. In their eyes. Their goal is to make the site profitable. That much is true. Value for individual people is a different topic. ;)
I read that post, got the email, went back to the post to answer the question, and realized I'd already read the post and as a near-Luddite, it had made my eyeballs spin. So I tiptoed away. But thanks to your fortifying nudge, I'll go back to it now and answer the damn questions, following the same rule I do for financial machinations suggested to me: if I don't understand it, the answer is always no.
lol. God I just love you to bits. It's a LOT in that post. Just read in bits. And thank you
Back at you, Ms. Caroll.
Somehow the 10% commission to writers for allowing the bot to come a raiding, reads like the Fox offering a 10% commission on all sales from the chickens it stole from your henhouse - if you leave the gate unlocked. We would be accepting a payment now but the likelihood that our own words will impede our sales in the future. Life and all related decisions would be so simple if money wasn't involved.
lol on the fox, joe. My issue is that offering everyone a blanket 10% increase in pay does not account for differences in how much content is being scraped. And the company paying Medium for access is not paying that way. Just an example... a new writer has 10 posts and knocked it out of the park this month and made $2500 on a boosted post. She would get a $250 bonus. A long timer with 1000 posts who makes $2500 also gets a $250 bonus. But one person got 10 posts scraped and the other got 1000 posts scraped. Fair? I think not.
I see your point, Linda, that would make a big difference. I responded with NO to both questions. I just don't like what AI is trying to do - making lots of money for no payment, while most writers here on Medium struggle to earn enough each month for a meal at Olive Garden. As long as Google and similar companies are treated like an organized religion- hands off - then we'll have issues. But we do need to keep fighting for what's ours. Cheers.
Thank you Joe. We do indeed, and I appreciate that you went over to add your voice. :)
Good old Coach Tony. “We’re not doing this because it feels wrong. But, hey, if the money’s right...why not?”
That's one possibility, for sure. The reality is there are probably bots scraping the site now as we speak. Medium is blocking one AI bot. I'm sure there's more than one AI bot. So I could see them saying well, if AI companies offer compensation, should we take it? But they need our permission because we own our writing.
I loved Walter's comment. I'm a poet and, as a breed, we tend to think about death. BUT regarding AI - I just wish it'd go away. I become an ostrich. Thank goodness for people like you - unafraid to stare the bloodsuckers in the face
My ex used to ask me why I always have to be the shit disturber in the room. I guess that's why he's my ex. lol. I figure one day I'm going to die whether I ask the hard questions or not, so might as well ask them. But still, I wish I didn't have to. Ugh.
I love it that you stir the shit. Your article informed me of something I was ostriching from, as others are, as well - we need to pay attention to it, not hide.
I say a firm NO to allowing our work to be used. As you say, there's more than one AI, as well as the ones from other countries. If I could put some kind of lock on my writing, I would.
I'm also a professional artist, and dread the day when I see some AI art out there that looks like I did it, but didn't, and there won't be a damn thing can do about it.
I really appreciated how you showed us the details, and laid it out so plainly in your post - thank you.
I did a semi-satirical article on this topic for The Writing Cooperative not long ago. I simply lack the technical understanding (good for you for providing the link to the line of code and being able to interpret it). My title was "Death and AI Writing Are Things I Try Not to Think About." I meant it. They're both inevitable and I feel dwelling on them will only make me depressed. Thanks for this thoughtful article... maybe it's something I do need to contemplate a little more.
It is depressing, Walter. I work in tech. The part about tech that bothers me most is that too many people like to talk above everyone's heads. Most of it can be explained very simply. Not all, granted, but most. And I hate when people have discussions that leave out the parts people need to know and are not that hard to explain. I should write about it, but man I do not love it. I'm good at my job, but its not what I love. Writing is what I love. Now they are meeting in the ugliest possible way.
Somebody left a wise comment on my article. He said that the AI can only see what I wrote in the past. It can't predict what I'm going to write. I feel there's truth there. The whole reason I'm in the writing game is because of the excitement that comes when you make an intuitive leap. There's no analytical progression that can get you there. I'm glad that your background in tech gives you the knowledge to explain what's going on to the rest of us!
That is very true. AI can only read what you've written. But the past is measured in seconds. Once the door is open, AI can be your first reader on every new post. And I don't say that to be an alarmist, but because we need to be aware of that. Right now what sets me apart from ChatGPT is the way I use words. Feed it everything I write the minute I hit publish and what sets me apart? My brain, but no one pays me for that.
There's an AI out there (I wrote about it) that can write in the style of dead writers. ie: Write a paragraph about (blank) in the style of Hemingway. Or Kafka. Or whoever. All that's held AI back is that it learned on old data, not current writings. Do we want people to go into ChatGPT and write in the style of Walter Rhein or any one of us? I don't want to see that day come. It will. But I'd like to hold those gates closed as long as possible. Preferably until I'm dead. lol
"Why would Medium entertain the idea of letting AI train on stories they don’t even own the rights to?" -- Well they do own rights to everything on Medium. It's their platform, their audience, their members, their paywall, their algorithms. I don't understand why creators still post there when the company and investors make all the money and pays creators less than 10 percent of the share. Clearly, it's a VC-backed company that needs to make money.
Ah, but you are incorrect, Robert. Medium does not own the rights to everything on Medium. Writers retain the rights to their own writing.
Yet another thing that reinforces how much my earnings have dropped here. And how it's not likely to change. Thanks for showing how difficult it is to limit access to the bots. I'll go back and answer the question
I'm glad -- we need more voices over there and thanks, Tree. :)
Thank you for breaking it down so clearly - quite honestly I didn't really know what to make of that email
You're very welcome. I wish they'd post their newsletter archives online somewhere. Maybe they do, but if so, it's not easy to find.
That line of things you disallow to protect clients' websites-- is that line what we need to put on posts so they don't get AI'd?
If I use Grammarly, which I do for editing (when I agree with it), is that considered AI training?
I agree with a no until those factors you mentioned get addressed justly. Aside from the ethical issues which may not stop AI marching in faster than we can imagine, would AI work on Medium if people put in the titles AI generated-- so readers would be informed? Oh my goodness - no!--I just realized. Our Medium would be inundated with AI. I heard that Amazon put a limit on authors for three AI generated books a....day! And then people would try to modify how they justify their AI with euphemisms.
The line of code I put on client sites is not something we can add as writers. That's what Medium is talking about, essentially. Creating a program to allow every writer to say yes, allow my writing to be scraped by AI or no, do not. But with the number of user accounts on Medium, I am not convinced it would work reliably.
It's just a guess, my I think AI is still a discussion on Medium because Tony wants it to be, and on some level I think he's hoping we'll collectively change our minds.
I asked Tony (on that post) why he thinks it would be simple and straight forward. He replied to say it would require an agreeable partner. Here's the thing. Medium is blocking one AI bot. I would bet there's far more than one AI bot on the internet. I think it's a discussion because they know it's inevitable that AI bots will hit Medium. Probably are already. So if they find a partner who can manage it for them, maybe that's better than doing nothing at all.
The issue becomes the 3 c's. Credit, compensation and consent. Those are the issues in the courts. But here's the thing. Giving us a % increase over our current income is not the compensation Medium would be getting. It's a guestimate. Which means that ultimately Medium would be profiting off selling our work to AI bots. I am not okay with that. I am not okay with AI bots training on my work without my consent. But unless the laws change, there's not a damn thing I can do about that except stop writing. And that sucks.
Is Substack being targeting by bots, too?
Linda
I remember thinking the same things when I first read that email. Glad that fort now, the answer is no.
Also- where was this survey? I don't remember being asked my opinion, and I've been on Medium on four different accounts each over a year old. So that 92% is made up of how many people? Who got asked? If they're representing me and determining my future on Medium, I feel like I should know who they are in some capacity.
I just read everything. I've decided my "NO!" Will be in the form of leaving Medium for good. The exit that deletes every word I've written, including comments.
I've been wishing I could quit and focus on Substack. Now I will.
QUESTION. Is Substack also being targeted by AI? If so, I'm finished.
Thanks, Linda, and everyone who commented. I really appreciated this discussion being on Substack. I just hope I won't have to delete my account there, too.
Linda George