4 ms·

Yeah, it's hard to come up with good solutions here. Maybe: Charge a dollar to submit, then get it refunded back when someone reviews it and confirms that it'

Yeah, it's hard to come up with good solutions here. Maybe: Charge a dollar to submit, then get it refunded back when someone reviews it and confirms that it's not obviously GPTrash? That'd be a bit of a pain, handling those refunds and managing complaints from real authors falsely-identified as spammers (and spammers correctly identified, but hoping to argue their way through). Seems like the sort of thing that'd need software to mediate so you can easily click a button to do the refunds and some third-party company fields complaints. But then you run into the problem that such a system would cost money to build and maintain, which'd require charging Clarkesworld a fee, and they'd apparently have trouble paying that. Maybe the SaaS providing this service keeps some percentage of the dollar that submission pays that's identified as a spammer, but that sets up a terrible conflict of interest... I dunno, it's an interesting problem. One that I'm glad I don't need to immediately solve. :S

rst 4y ago
They're trying to figure out what to do, but have already rejected these ideas for good reasons: https://twitter.com/clarkesworld/status/1628049689374334980 https://twitter.com/clarkesworld/status/1628049689374334980 A dollar isn't nearly enough to deter most of the crowd that's flooding Clarkesworld -- and much more than that would start to be a real burden for submissions from non-Western countries which they're actively soliciting. Current detection tech is too unreliable to trust and too expensive for them to run in bulk. And going through the submissions pile is already a tedious and thankless job. (BTW, part of their problem is that some sleazy "get rich quick with ChatGPT" guides were explicitly telling people to have it write some crap story and submit the result to Clarkesworld -- which is ridiculous. The mag is quite selective, and the fraction of sweated-over-by-human submissions that get publication, and a check, was already quite low.)
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  What if I told you that the best way to make a quick buck with chatgpt is to write a bunch of crappy articles about how to make money with chatgpt, then stick ads on them. It’s a gold rush, sell shovels.

rst 4y ago

They're trying to figure out what to do, but have already rejected these ideas for good reasons: https://twitter.com/clarkesworld/status/1628049689374334980 https://twitter.com/clarkesworld/status/1628049689374334980 A dollar isn't nearly enough to deter most of the crowd that's flooding Clarkesworld -- and much more than that would start to be a real burden for submissions from non-Western countries which they're actively soliciting. Current detection tech is too unreliable to trust and too expensive for them to run in bulk. And going through the submissions pile is already a tedious and thankless job. (BTW, part of their problem is that some sleazy "get rich quick with ChatGPT" guides were explicitly telling people to have it write some crap story and submit the result to Clarkesworld -- which is ridiculous. The mag is quite selective, and the fraction of sweated-over-by-human submissions that get publication, and a check, was already quite low.)

Godel_unicode 4y ago
What if I told you that the best way to make a quick buck with chatgpt is to write a bunch of crappy articles about how to make money with chatgpt, then stick ads on them. It’s a gold rush, sell shovels.