I guess I realise now that the value of something is not what people believe it to be. It is the length of suffering and effort the creator went through.
What bothers me about this is that the author fraudulently presented the book as her own work. Doesn’t matter to me if she used AI or hired a ghost writer - claiming you wrote something you didn’t write is fraud IMO. I’ve never understood how ghost writers are legal.
Art of the Deal.
or hired a ghost writer
Isn’t that the entire point of hiring a ghost writer?
Isn’t what the entire point?
Their goddamn ghosts maaaaaihn
buckethat wearing, three quarter lengths with red tinted sumglesses, 1990s conspiracy theorist voice
It’s bad enough that they are using AI to create their content, but don’t they even proof-read it before uploading it? It seems like the most basic requirement, but they don’t even seem to be bothering with that.
Hate this title, how about:
“A novel by author Lena McDonald, accidentally leaves AI prompt in published version.”
Or, more accurately, ‘a novel that is at most partially by Lena McDonald’.
Or “a novel published as authored by Lena McDonald contains AI prompt”
lol, way better!
🔥👄🔥 There should be severe consequences for this.
It would suck for the author, Lena McDonald, if anyone who searched for
“Lena McDonald author”
found out about this story.
I get what you’re doing but they can just change pennames
The future is now, right?
I don’t know if it’s necessary a bad thing. Presumably these people were enjoying the book until they read this. It’s kind of like the invention of the printing press. Sure, the content may not be artistically crafted any more, and there may be waaaay more slop. But I bet we will end up getting way more high quality content too.
I don’t know if it’s necessary a bad thing. Presumably these people were enjoying the book until they read this.
How can we presume that?
All we know is that these people were promised a novel written as art by humans and were baited and switched into getting an algorithm.
It’s kind of like the invention of the printing press. Sure, the content may not be artistically crafted any more, and there may be waaaay more slop. But I bet we will end up getting way more high quality content too.
If we’re still in the betting process for whether AI might one day potentially be high quality then it sounds like you understand that today it’s not a viable product to write novels with.
I disagree.
While AI might help at systemising and/or summarising already existing information, I wouldn’t rely on it at all for any creative thought. And what’s worse, the more people spare content like this, the more tolerant they’ll become to it, bringing the overall quality down.
The vibe coders and every person using an LLM can’t complain about it. It’s fair game.
Well, you certainly can complain about it and still use it, when your livelihood requires you to either use the tech, or get left behind by those who do. Speed and turnaround time wins over skill and quality.
that is not true. Speed and turnaround NEVER wins over skill and quality. You need skill to produce stuff fast that is also of value.
Leave your guess for how long we’ve got till AI apps are spammed everywhere.
Also for no reason in particular:
My son and I laughed our asses off over that presentation. Brilliant but kind of disgusting.
They don’t mention enshittification - I think Doctorow popularized the term later - but this is a perfect example of a process that contributes to the phenomenon.
I had never thought about it in these terms, but they repeatedly mentioned curation, and it’s so clearly a fundamental topic in today’s online world.
This was an incredible video, thanks for sharing. It gave me a new perspective to consider.
AI can be ethically used in writing. This is not an example of that. People need to get into the “AI as a tool” mindset. And capitalism causing greed is part of the issue of course.
Writing is a rare form of communication, borderline unique to humans. Because of that, to me, it’s fundamentally unethical to have “AI” “write” anything. It’s insulting to me on a base level, particularly when used for communication.
We could also use a model or 2 trained on ethical data.
Until then its pretty easy to argue all ai is unethical.
Would citing all the training sources satisfy the spirit of attribution licenses like CC-BY?
