The problem is not about money it is that we are made massively culturally poorer by the flood of ahistorical, amoral, incoherent, rococco, contradictory yet plausible shit produced by LLMs.
Both the internet and books have been flooded with ‘content’ which appears like human content but has no coherence or intention to it and tends to fall apart completely the longer form the story.
Even our autocomplete is being infected with LLM suggestions, distorting and guiding how people write.
This is a VERY significant problem for our culture long term.
I don’t see any other way past this other than regulation:
We need authenticated online spaces where your account is linked to a real, government issued ID. This way, moderating content becomes feasible again. Bans will hold value, since you can’t just create new accounts all the time. I predict people will gravitate towards authenticated markets (and social media).
I for one am sick and tired of second guessing every text I‘m reading, at least give me someone to hold accountable.
Or maybe we just collectively impose severe social sanction on people trying to pass off low effort slop as their own work and stop calling it ‘artificial intelligence’?
> Bans will hold value, since you can’t just create new accounts all the time.
People will just flood to places that are not official and where they'll be able to express their views freely. That's how these things have always turned out to be.
In other words, let's say that I'll get banned from the likes of FB or IG as a result of me trespassing my government's ideological wishes, well, tough luck for FB and IG (and fuck them while I'm at it), I'll just make an account on a platform that won't abide by EU/Romanian (I'm Romanian myself) propaganda, where I'll still be able to share views with people thinking similar thoughts to what I think.
the market they analyse is specifically self-published fiction. Most of the traditionally published books are not AI generated and they make significantly more money as a category than self publishing does. It is not really possible to flood that market in this form with 0 entry barriers.
So yes, allowing AI slop in a market where anyone can publish anything and quality is not a very strict criteria, of course it will dillute the market. But we are unlikely to see this shift in traditional publishing houses.
So a book that was “stunningly good, everyone fell in love with it. It’s a book that appeals to absolutely everyone.” now won't be published because AI was used to create it?
Personally I prefer stunningly good over exclusively human created.
I'd want to read it before passing judgement on the quality of it, not trust the word of the author's agent, one Marc Gerald of 'Europa Content', who you are quoting here. It appears a lot of people in the chain up to the editor failed at their job here, probably because they are submerged in slop submitted using LLMs and maybe the first chapter was good and had work put into it.
Clearly the editor didn't think it was stunningly good, or they wouldn't have flagged it up.
Exactly my point. Self publishing does not have these entry problems or that level of money. This is the opposite of flooding the market with generative AI
GAI is also being used by prospective authors applying to publishing houses, and they are in fact flooded with dross created with it, which is a serious problem for them.
To the extent that their reviewers get lazy and are not reading entire texts, as evidenced by this slipping through and then being caught by an editor (who did read the whole thing).
Both the internet and books have been flooded with ‘content’ which appears like human content but has no coherence or intention to it and tends to fall apart completely the longer form the story.
Even our autocomplete is being infected with LLM suggestions, distorting and guiding how people write.
This is a VERY significant problem for our culture long term.