3 ms·

You're moving the goalposts. > If you ignore the fact that this is the ubiquitous understanding of what AI is and then envision a different, more charitable an

You're moving the goalposts. > If you ignore the fact that this is the ubiquitous understanding of what AI is and then envision a different, more charitable and far less popular definition of it, their point about ablism becomes more possibly arguable I am pointing out that this is not, in my experience, a ubiquitous understanding of what AI is. This is separate from what the impacts of AI are. But I'll play and switch topics - a huge portion of publishers stopped accepting direct submissions from authors decades before AI was a thing, because of all of the human-written drivel. If you want to be a published author and not self-publish (which I would argue is often a better situation than going with a lot of these smaller independent publishers to begin with), get an agent. You don't even have to be a particularly good author for this part - just invested enough to find agents that works in the space you are writing in and chatting with a few. They'll get your manuscript into the hands of publishers. That's their job. We already created a whole profession pre-AI that largely exists to filter out the bottom of the barrel stuff because it was already overwhelming publishers.

jrflowers 2y ago
It is not moving the goalposts to point out that we use different measures of ubiquity. Your measure is things you have heard from your friends, mine is the nearly inescapable pile of generated garbage that has swamped the internet. I do not understand your point about agents other than I’m assuming that you’re pointing out that the flood of garbage has made their jobs more difficult as well. Anyway, it does not make any sense to believe that humans are especially not-lazy when it comes to generative AI in particular. https://www.vox.com/24141648/ai-ebook-grift-mushroom-foraging-mycological-society https://www.vox.com/24141648/ai-ebook-grift-mushroom-foragin... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy's_Chocolate_Experience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy's_Chocolate_Experience https://variety.com/2024/film/opinion/megalopolis-trailer-fake-quotes-critics-1236115983/ https://variety.com/2024/film/opinion/megalopolis-trailer-fa... https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-uses-chatgpt-in-federal-court-and-it-goes-horribly-wrong/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-use... https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-essays-college-cheating-professors-caught-students-ai-plagiarism-2023-1?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-essays-college-cheat...
- cthalupa 2y ago
  > It is not moving the goalposts to point out that we use different measures of ubiquity. Your measure is things you have heard from your friends, mine is the nearly inescapable pile of generated garbage that has swamped the internet. Your comment that I was replying to was literally about the "ubiquitous understanding of what AI is" in context of a definition. I stated that, in my experience, the definition and understanding of what AI is not ubiquitous, and that even the relatively uninformed know that AI has a spectrum of use cases. Neither of us have data, but you've now moved to discussing the quantitative amount of AI content you have exposure to and not whether or not people believe AI is only useful for mass producing garbage. They're different measures and you're conflating them, all while bringing up other tangentially related points. Which brings us to your next line: > I do not understand your point about agents This is in direct response to another quote of yours: > The enormous wave of AI-generated drivel that caused publishers and contests to pause accepting new work stands as evidence otherwise. My point is that the norms for the publishing industry were to not allow direct submissions from authors to begin with, long predating AI. Specifically because the vast majority of submitted works were garbage - most of what humans write is not worth publishing, either. Even in the subset of independent publishing houses that do generally accept open submissions, the vast majority never get more than a cursory glance, and a significant portion of what does get published comes through an agent. The idea that publishers, independent or otherwise not accepting open submissions for manuscripts is some significant change or even a problem just ignores the realities of the industry. Any human serious about getting published should have always been trying to work with an agent to begin with - the commission fees are a bargain for the work they do, even beyond just having the in with the publishers to even get something looked at. They get paid out of your royalty so it's in their best interest to help you not only sign a deal, but also help you negotiate the best deal you can. The good ones will also have all of the stats and metrics around sales in your target demographic, etc. so they bring data to the negotiating table. (I would note, however, that I'd highly recommend anyone who is looking at a deal with a smaller publisher to also examine the pros and cons of self-publishing - indie publishers don't have the sort of budget and reach that the giants of the world do, and depending on your appetite and ability for taking on some of the tasks they would handle, it might be worth doing so to keep more of the money in your own pocket.)

jrflowers 2y ago

It is not moving the goalposts to point out that we use different measures of ubiquity. Your measure is things you have heard from your friends, mine is the nearly inescapable pile of generated garbage that has swamped the internet. I do not understand your point about agents other than I’m assuming that you’re pointing out that the flood of garbage has made their jobs more difficult as well. Anyway, it does not make any sense to believe that humans are especially not-lazy when it comes to generative AI in particular. https://www.vox.com/24141648/ai-ebook-grift-mushroom-foraging-mycological-society https://www.vox.com/24141648/ai-ebook-grift-mushroom-foragin... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy's_Chocolate_Experience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy's_Chocolate_Experience https://variety.com/2024/film/opinion/megalopolis-trailer-fake-quotes-critics-1236115983/ https://variety.com/2024/film/opinion/megalopolis-trailer-fa... https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-uses-chatgpt-in-federal-court-and-it-goes-horribly-wrong/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-use... https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-essays-college-cheating-professors-caught-students-ai-plagiarism-2023-1?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-essays-college-cheat...

cthalupa 2y ago
> It is not moving the goalposts to point out that we use different measures of ubiquity. Your measure is things you have heard from your friends, mine is the nearly inescapable pile of generated garbage that has swamped the internet. Your comment that I was replying to was literally about the "ubiquitous understanding of what AI is" in context of a definition. I stated that, in my experience, the definition and understanding of what AI is not ubiquitous, and that even the relatively uninformed know that AI has a spectrum of use cases. Neither of us have data, but you've now moved to discussing the quantitative amount of AI content you have exposure to and not whether or not people believe AI is only useful for mass producing garbage. They're different measures and you're conflating them, all while bringing up other tangentially related points. Which brings us to your next line: > I do not understand your point about agents This is in direct response to another quote of yours: > The enormous wave of AI-generated drivel that caused publishers and contests to pause accepting new work stands as evidence otherwise. My point is that the norms for the publishing industry were to not allow direct submissions from authors to begin with, long predating AI. Specifically because the vast majority of submitted works were garbage - most of what humans write is not worth publishing, either. Even in the subset of independent publishing houses that do generally accept open submissions, the vast majority never get more than a cursory glance, and a significant portion of what does get published comes through an agent. The idea that publishers, independent or otherwise not accepting open submissions for manuscripts is some significant change or even a problem just ignores the realities of the industry. Any human serious about getting published should have always been trying to work with an agent to begin with - the commission fees are a bargain for the work they do, even beyond just having the in with the publishers to even get something looked at. They get paid out of your royalty so it's in their best interest to help you not only sign a deal, but also help you negotiate the best deal you can. The good ones will also have all of the stats and metrics around sales in your target demographic, etc. so they bring data to the negotiating table. (I would note, however, that I'd highly recommend anyone who is looking at a deal with a smaller publisher to also examine the pros and cons of self-publishing - indie publishers don't have the sort of budget and reach that the giants of the world do, and depending on your appetite and ability for taking on some of the tasks they would handle, it might be worth doing so to keep more of the money in your own pocket.)