[altmanaltman]

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.

[grey-area]

$2m crime novel deal collapses amid questions over AI use

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/jul/31/crime-novel-de...

[FreeTrade]

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.

[grey-area]

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.

[altmanaltman]

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

[grey-area]

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).

So no, this does not prove your point.