Support your local indie bookstores too! They stock books from self-published authors and small, independent publishers, particularly if they’re a specialty bookstore. They build a relationship with the authors, publishers, and literary agents, so they won’t stock AI books. They also give great recommendations! I think Amazon had a huge part to play, and so does any publisher that allows books to be published without checking them. The issue is that once publishers are checking over/editing books, even self-published books, then they want to be paid for their work (which is fair). But then many publishers can be predatory and charge ridiculous amounts to authors. And then we have the issue of publishers gatekeeping book publishing, even if it’s supposed to be so books are being written by humans and not AI
The problem I have with Amazon's Band Aid approach to this issue is that if an AI-content mill self publisher is determined to get around the "3-per-day" limit, they'll just start alternate KDP accounts and publish through them.
@@EmilyReadsBooksYeah, if Amazon were really serious about shutting down the AI-content mills, they'd limit KDP to 1 or 2 new releases per author per week.
The issue is that ChatGPT will directly copy characters, plot points, writing style, and even exact wording. And it’s doing that by reading the actual full books to copy them. Authors don’t do that. They read thousands of books over decades and they get inspiration from them, but they also form their own style through practice over time. ChatGPT doesn’t do that
Exactly this. If you give two authors the same prompt (character names, plot, setting, etc) you will ultimately have two very different stories because of their lived experiences. Since AI has no 'lived experiences' to draw from, it will take from what already exists.
@@EmilyReadsBooks I'll help explain the difference. for starters authors do not whole sale use someone else's work and publishes it. For example if I ask and Ai to make a story about a boy and his dog going hunting and the dog maybe dying, the Ai will produce that. However it's now been found, a lot actually, that Ai is using information from other books and sources, sometimes whole sale or word for word. So now instead of you making the book your Ai has copied from say, Where the Red Ferns Grow. Now I'm not 100% sure what you meant this or meant exactly how the Ai is writing the book and what the difference is. If you need a technical difference between human writing and an Ai then I can explain that too. In fact you likely have an Ai we can use as an example in your pocket, or maybe you are holding it right now if you are reading this using your phone. Now Ai works by sampling a lot of data and rehashing it, often barely, to produce something new-ish. This tech isn't new, in your phone when you type there are a lot of apps or more often now, things coded into the IOS of the device to read your typing habits and predict what you will write next. In fact this sentence was made using that text feature on my smartphone XD. Including the XD cause I use that enough for it to pick up on it So Ai is basically that, but using other peoples information and using that for profit. and of course writers, artist, people who work in software like me, so don't tell me I don't understand LLMs when I put one on a Raspberry pi (BTW, I wish Ai bros would stop saying that people just don't get the tech, I've worked with tech for over 10 years and let me tell you, Ai bros do not know shit about the field, even Ai itself or how it works) These people are unhappy because you are using works, that they worked on, their lively hood, and are using it for profit, flooding the markets, and failing to understand what you are even doing. It's less art, and closer to me stealing your lawnmower to start a lawn care business and then not pay you for the use of said mower. Now imagine everyone on your block taking your mower and doing the same thing. If you also had this as a business, suddenly you and everyone else don't have a job, yes including the thieves, because everyone can get it. Why the hell would a normal person who knows about Ai, buy an Ai generated book when they can just ask the Ai to make it themselves. For more proof... Whens the last time you went out and bought Ai books knowingly? If it comes down to it things keep going like this, then why the hell would anyone support someone elses Ai creation when they can make their own? I don't need your book about a Kid and his dog, I'll generate my own. I don't need your Ai art, I'll generate my own, I do not need your Ai generated movie, I'll make my own. And just for shits and giggles while typing I've been using one of mine to make deep fakes of politicians saying things they wouldn't normally say and posting them on politically charged twitter and Facebook pages. Just another reason it should be legal, and hey, if it's legal for them, it's legal for me XD Unless they plan to ban or regulate it into the ground that is, Just saying
As an artist in the CGI field for over 25 years, it's absolutely mindboggling to me that this is a discussion that would be had in my lifetime. I posit that the ONLY thing mankind has that makes this existence worth living is culture...our creativity. AI won't undo us by skynet...I think it will just have us choose the path ourselves.
Artists lost. coders lost. The music industry didn't sue. What makes you think writers can win? It's not illegal to pass a copyrighted work through an algorithm. Neither is it illegal to learn from a copyrighted work. No amount of chatGPT-ing is going to devalue existing copyright. Hence, no damages can be claimed on "A Song of Ice and Fire" or "Harry Potter" for example. That being said, Amazon and Google penalize AI content heavily. Also, AI cannot own copyright. And humans are still better (for now). So take whatever solace that it.
I don't think this is about 'winning', but hoping that people will continue to see the value in the stories being told through human lived experiences. If AI becomes the only way we produce/consume art, that could lead us down a very dangerous path of only seeing/reading/experiencing from a very limited POV.
I didn't know about this, thanks. I guess there could be times when an author could have a lot of books to upload at once and then set different release dates....
I do suppose that could be an issue, but then I suppose they could just do a few a day. I'm not sure if it is specific to publishing day or uploads. Might be something good to look up!
AI generated content is the new scam. (I wrote this seconds before you said it feels like a scam) But it is! it's just about tricking people into buying the poor content to make money
This is exactly how I feel. Do I think AI will become good enough to one day make decent stories? Sure. But as of now it feels wrong to charge people money to read some of what it is writing lol.
Every day I become more confident that the reckless use of AI will ruin human society. I would bet money on it, but I won't have any once AI and automation replaces 90% of the workforce. The technology is incredibly cool, it almost feels magical at times, and I think it could be an amazing asset as part of a human creator's existing workflow. The problem is that it's not being used like that, and it won't be used like that in many, many cases. People and companies have already realized they can churn out AI-generated content much faster and cheaper, and most people don't have a discerning eye to tell the difference. Hell, at the rate AI is advancing eventually nobody will be able to tell the difference. I'm not sure it even matters that courts ruled AI-generated content can't be copyrighted because how can they prove that with enough confidence to enforce it? Even if there are ways to determine if something was AI-generated now, very soon the technology will progress to the point where we won't be able to prove it definitively enough to hold up in court. I think the only hope we have of "closing Pandora's box" even a little is if enough people refuse to engage with AI-generated content farms. Companies will always seek to maximize profits at any cost and if the target audience doesn't care either way, why would they pay a human a fair wage to do the work when they could just have ChatGPT write a script or ask Midjourney to spit out art for free, and much faster? A lot of people don't care about the controversies around AI art, writing, and music because they foolishly think their job sectors are safe just because they haven't been affected yet, but it won't stay that way forever.
I have very similar thoughts to yours. It's frightening and cool at the same time. And I just KNOW people will not use it wisely. I fear for what other issues will arise as time goes on. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!
Support your local indie bookstores too! They stock books from self-published authors and small, independent publishers, particularly if they’re a specialty bookstore. They build a relationship with the authors, publishers, and literary agents, so they won’t stock AI books. They also give great recommendations! I think Amazon had a huge part to play, and so does any publisher that allows books to be published without checking them. The issue is that once publishers are checking over/editing books, even self-published books, then they want to be paid for their work (which is fair). But then many publishers can be predatory and charge ridiculous amounts to authors. And then we have the issue of publishers gatekeeping book publishing, even if it’s supposed to be so books are being written by humans and not AI
Yes!! I love my local indie stores. They are the best. You're right. It's hard because anyone can publish anything (whether true or not). So do we create a standard to publish? Will that make publishing inaccessible to those who cannot afford their services? It's a very multi-layered problem.
Support your local indie bookstores too! They stock books from self-published authors and small, independent publishers, particularly if they’re a specialty bookstore. They build a relationship with the authors, publishers, and literary agents, so they won’t stock AI books. They also give great recommendations!
I think Amazon had a huge part to play, and so does any publisher that allows books to be published without checking them. The issue is that once publishers are checking over/editing books, even self-published books, then they want to be paid for their work (which is fair). But then many publishers can be predatory and charge ridiculous amounts to authors. And then we have the issue of publishers gatekeeping book publishing, even if it’s supposed to be so books are being written by humans and not AI
The problem I have with Amazon's Band Aid approach to this issue is that if an AI-content mill self publisher is determined to get around the "3-per-day" limit, they'll just start alternate KDP accounts and publish through them.
Yes! Like, how will they limit that? There is no solution happening here 😭 just the idea of one
@@EmilyReadsBooksYeah, if Amazon were really serious about shutting down the AI-content mills, they'd limit KDP to 1 or 2 new releases per author per week.
That's pretty much my thought as well@@keiththorpe9571
Thank you for talking about AI, it is important and interesting. More awareness is good!
Thank you! My goal is to keep buyers (and writers) informed as much as I can!
I don't see how AI reading a book and drawing inspiration from it is different from a human doing the same.
The issue is that ChatGPT will directly copy characters, plot points, writing style, and even exact wording. And it’s doing that by reading the actual full books to copy them. Authors don’t do that. They read thousands of books over decades and they get inspiration from them, but they also form their own style through practice over time. ChatGPT doesn’t do that
Exactly this. If you give two authors the same prompt (character names, plot, setting, etc) you will ultimately have two very different stories because of their lived experiences. Since AI has no 'lived experiences' to draw from, it will take from what already exists.
@@EmilyReadsBooks I'll help explain the difference. for starters authors do not whole sale use someone else's work and publishes it. For example if I ask and Ai to make a story about a boy and his dog going hunting and the dog maybe dying, the Ai will produce that. However it's now been found, a lot actually, that Ai is using information from other books and sources, sometimes whole sale or word for word.
So now instead of you making the book your Ai has copied from say, Where the Red Ferns Grow. Now I'm not 100% sure what you meant this or meant exactly how the Ai is writing the book and what the difference is. If you need a technical difference between human writing and an Ai then I can explain that too. In fact you likely have an Ai we can use as an example in your pocket, or maybe you are holding it right now if you are reading this using your phone.
Now Ai works by sampling a lot of data and rehashing it, often barely, to produce something new-ish. This tech isn't new, in your phone when you type there are a lot of apps or more often now, things coded into the IOS of the device to read your typing habits and predict what you will write next. In fact this sentence was made using that text feature on my smartphone XD. Including the XD cause I use that enough for it to pick up on it
So Ai is basically that, but using other peoples information and using that for profit. and of course writers, artist, people who work in software like me, so don't tell me I don't understand LLMs when I put one on a Raspberry pi (BTW, I wish Ai bros would stop saying that people just don't get the tech, I've worked with tech for over 10 years and let me tell you, Ai bros do not know shit about the field, even Ai itself or how it works) These people are unhappy because you are using works, that they worked on, their lively hood, and are using it for profit, flooding the markets, and failing to understand what you are even doing. It's less art, and closer to me stealing your lawnmower to start a lawn care business and then not pay you for the use of said mower. Now imagine everyone on your block taking your mower and doing the same thing. If you also had this as a business, suddenly you and everyone else don't have a job, yes including the thieves, because everyone can get it.
Why the hell would a normal person who knows about Ai, buy an Ai generated book when they can just ask the Ai to make it themselves. For more proof... Whens the last time you went out and bought Ai books knowingly? If it comes down to it things keep going like this, then why the hell would anyone support someone elses Ai creation when they can make their own? I don't need your book about a Kid and his dog, I'll generate my own. I don't need your Ai art, I'll generate my own, I do not need your Ai generated movie, I'll make my own. And just for shits and giggles while typing I've been using one of mine to make deep fakes of politicians saying things they wouldn't normally say and posting them on politically charged twitter and Facebook pages.
Just another reason it should be legal, and hey, if it's legal for them, it's legal for me XD Unless they plan to ban or regulate it into the ground that is, Just saying
As an artist in the CGI field for over 25 years, it's absolutely mindboggling to me that this is a discussion that would be had in my lifetime. I posit that the ONLY thing mankind has that makes this existence worth living is culture...our creativity. AI won't undo us by skynet...I think it will just have us choose the path ourselves.
Artists lost. coders lost. The music industry didn't sue. What makes you think writers can win? It's not illegal to pass a copyrighted work through an algorithm. Neither is it illegal to learn from a copyrighted work. No amount of chatGPT-ing is going to devalue existing copyright. Hence, no damages can be claimed on "A Song of Ice and Fire" or "Harry Potter" for example. That being said, Amazon and Google penalize AI content heavily. Also, AI cannot own copyright. And humans are still better (for now). So take whatever solace that it.
I don't think this is about 'winning', but hoping that people will continue to see the value in the stories being told through human lived experiences. If AI becomes the only way we produce/consume art, that could lead us down a very dangerous path of only seeing/reading/experiencing from a very limited POV.
I didn't know about this, thanks. I guess there could be times when an author could have a lot of books to upload at once and then set different release dates....
I do suppose that could be an issue, but then I suppose they could just do a few a day. I'm not sure if it is specific to publishing day or uploads. Might be something good to look up!
AI generated content is the new scam. (I wrote this seconds before you said it feels like a scam) But it is! it's just about tricking people into buying the poor content to make money
This is exactly how I feel. Do I think AI will become good enough to one day make decent stories? Sure. But as of now it feels wrong to charge people money to read some of what it is writing lol.
Every day I become more confident that the reckless use of AI will ruin human society. I would bet money on it, but I won't have any once AI and automation replaces 90% of the workforce.
The technology is incredibly cool, it almost feels magical at times, and I think it could be an amazing asset as part of a human creator's existing workflow. The problem is that it's not being used like that, and it won't be used like that in many, many cases. People and companies have already realized they can churn out AI-generated content much faster and cheaper, and most people don't have a discerning eye to tell the difference. Hell, at the rate AI is advancing eventually nobody will be able to tell the difference. I'm not sure it even matters that courts ruled AI-generated content can't be copyrighted because how can they prove that with enough confidence to enforce it? Even if there are ways to determine if something was AI-generated now, very soon the technology will progress to the point where we won't be able to prove it definitively enough to hold up in court.
I think the only hope we have of "closing Pandora's box" even a little is if enough people refuse to engage with AI-generated content farms. Companies will always seek to maximize profits at any cost and if the target audience doesn't care either way, why would they pay a human a fair wage to do the work when they could just have ChatGPT write a script or ask Midjourney to spit out art for free, and much faster? A lot of people don't care about the controversies around AI art, writing, and music because they foolishly think their job sectors are safe just because they haven't been affected yet, but it won't stay that way forever.
I have very similar thoughts to yours. It's frightening and cool at the same time. And I just KNOW people will not use it wisely. I fear for what other issues will arise as time goes on. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!
Degredation of society
Support your local indie bookstores too! They stock books from self-published authors and small, independent publishers, particularly if they’re a specialty bookstore. They build a relationship with the authors, publishers, and literary agents, so they won’t stock AI books. They also give great recommendations!
I think Amazon had a huge part to play, and so does any publisher that allows books to be published without checking them. The issue is that once publishers are checking over/editing books, even self-published books, then they want to be paid for their work (which is fair). But then many publishers can be predatory and charge ridiculous amounts to authors. And then we have the issue of publishers gatekeeping book publishing, even if it’s supposed to be so books are being written by humans and not AI
Yes!! I love my local indie stores. They are the best.
You're right. It's hard because anyone can publish anything (whether true or not). So do we create a standard to publish? Will that make publishing inaccessible to those who cannot afford their services? It's a very multi-layered problem.