Skip to content

Against AI: An Open Letter From Writers to Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and all other publishers of America

Technology
34 17 0
  • It’s actually wild how with the just-in-time economy, it has never required less capital investment to start a business like a book publisher. And yet it seems like the only people that take advantage of it are average schmo “grindset grifters” selling junk while all of the people with the real economic power literally beg the institutions that have abused them since the very beginning of their industry to please do the right thing.

    I'd take it part of the problem is that publisher is quite a "unglorious" job to say somehow. Like, it's difficult to make it look fancy or interesting enough that you'd take effort, time and resources from other things you could be doing - such as, ya know, writing the story you want to write - to have to do that.

  • Is that like a cooperative but in germany?

    Oh it's for the correct sound distinction. Compare naïve vs naive (eg.: glaive).

  • And I don’t care if something is written by AI. As people we care about the quality of the output.

    We know AI by default just creates slop but with a human in the loop, it’s possible to get inspiration for scenes, brainstorming, discuss ideas etc.

    I think a good writer would use it this way.

    AI is much like smoking (hey, it is killing the atmosphere! ). Even if a good writer uses it, the usage itseld can still cause harm for others.

  • It means that today pretty much anybody can start a book publishing company, because just-in-time print shops will handle literally all of the expensive overhead that is associated with running a publishing company and just print whatever you hire them to print on demand for you once customers actually place orders, sometimes even on a commission basis so you don’t even have to pay them money unless people are actually buying the books you are publishing.

    I guess, but print on demand is also more expensive than printing in bulk, when looking per unit, and of lower quality (paper and binding). I'm not too familiar with the details of book publishing but I wouldn't expect that people are not using this route simply because they failed to notice its benefits.

  • I guess, but print on demand is also more expensive than printing in bulk, when looking per unit, and of lower quality (paper and binding). I'm not too familiar with the details of book publishing but I wouldn't expect that people are not using this route simply because they failed to notice its benefits.

    As someone who loves books, I avoid print-on-demand. Most of the time they end up with terrible, jpeg artifact ridden covers, disorganized page breaks, and terrible quality text.

  • Everyone wants to protect their money under a capitalistic system. Where were you when all of the typewriter repairmen lost their jobs? Society and technology change and evolve over time.

    AI written books have no value.

    If it was not worth writing, it is not worth reading.

  • 🤣 🤣

    If there's money to be made by releasing books created by Counterfeit Cognizance, those publishers will take advantage of it to its fullest... Count on it.

    Nice try, but...

    🤡 🖕 💩

    Your points don't get better just because you coined/found a new term

  • “We want our publishers to stand with us. To make a pledge that they will never release books that were created by machines.”

    I see this as the 2025 equivalent of the entertainment industry's collective backlash against Napster back in the day. The issue will probably be decided by courts and legislatures, as before, and that legal decision will be transmuted into fierce morality, as before. The major difference is that in 1999 the legal combatants were a whole industry vs a handful of software developers and basically Lawrence Lessig, whereas with AI they're all corporations with tons of money at stake. So the outcome could easily be very different this time, and our crowdsourced moral standards could follow suit.

  • I guess, but print on demand is also more expensive than printing in bulk, when looking per unit, and of lower quality (paper and binding). I'm not too familiar with the details of book publishing but I wouldn't expect that people are not using this route simply because they failed to notice its benefits.

    Print on demand is more expensive because you’re paying a premium for never having to actually spend your own money. This is why these get rich quick types use it, because again literally anybody can do this with basically no money and all of the “expenses” only happen when people actually buy the stuff. Once that happens, the printer takes its cut directly from the sale and then passes on the rest to you without you having to do literally anything or spending any money out of your own pocket.

    As for the quality, there’s literally no reason that a book that is printed on demand has to be low quality or use low quality materials. It quite literally only seems like that because the only people who are doing this right now are rich quick types who don’t actually care about what they’re selling and are just trying to minimize the cut the printer takes because that means more money for them.

    And all of this is honestly moot anyway because you wouldn’t do this with the intention of using on-demand printing long-term. You would do it just to get started and then as the business grows, it will eventually be able to take advantage of more economical, but high capital investment opportunities like bulk publishing. I only brought it up because it’s literally never been easier to boot strap a business and the proof is the fact that Amazon is filled with AI generated garbage books. So like I’m just not willing to entertain the idea that an individual who literally has fans and clout should have a more difficult time selling books this way than a literal nobody scam artist pushing garbage.

  • I think the thing about fair use is that you don't need permission

    The key here is that this is a reasonable legal hurdle. It would be like the terms of service you never read when installing a piece of software.

  • Your points don't get better just because you coined/found a new term

    Aaannd...

    Yours don't improve by you being a jackass. But, doing so will earn you a quick block. Bye.

  • Print on demand is more expensive because you’re paying a premium for never having to actually spend your own money. This is why these get rich quick types use it, because again literally anybody can do this with basically no money and all of the “expenses” only happen when people actually buy the stuff. Once that happens, the printer takes its cut directly from the sale and then passes on the rest to you without you having to do literally anything or spending any money out of your own pocket.

    As for the quality, there’s literally no reason that a book that is printed on demand has to be low quality or use low quality materials. It quite literally only seems like that because the only people who are doing this right now are rich quick types who don’t actually care about what they’re selling and are just trying to minimize the cut the printer takes because that means more money for them.

    And all of this is honestly moot anyway because you wouldn’t do this with the intention of using on-demand printing long-term. You would do it just to get started and then as the business grows, it will eventually be able to take advantage of more economical, but high capital investment opportunities like bulk publishing. I only brought it up because it’s literally never been easier to boot strap a business and the proof is the fact that Amazon is filled with AI generated garbage books. So like I’m just not willing to entertain the idea that an individual who literally has fans and clout should have a more difficult time selling books this way than a literal nobody scam artist pushing garbage.

    because you’re paying

    Well no, it's the buyer who is paying. Which they might find off-putting, if the final price is too high, so you get fewer buyers and less profit.

    As for the quality, there’s literally no reason that a book that is printed on demand has to be low quality or use low quality materials.

    Except that in practice they simply are of lower quality. I've seen quite enough of such books. Maybe higher quality materials could be used, but that would raise the price for the end-user even more, and possibly slow down the production.

    and the proof is the fact that Amazon is filled with AI generated garbage books

    One has to wonder how much money they actually make, though. I saw some YT videos about the topic, IIRC it's really difficult. Their mere presence doesn't prove their profitability but only the belief by many people that they could be profitable.

    It's easy to start a business, sure. But you didn't explain the rest of the process and don't seem to actually know a lot about the particulars of book publishing (neither do I, but whatever I do know doesn't agree with your imagined "solution").

  • As someone who loves books, I avoid print-on-demand. Most of the time they end up with terrible, jpeg artifact ridden covers, disorganized page breaks, and terrible quality text.

    Yeah, usually they're just sourced from public-domain book collections such as Google Books (who scan older books which can end up visually messy), and I'm pretty sure some of those that are offered on Amazon were straight-up based on pirated PDFs.

  • Aaannd...

    Yours don't improve by you being a jackass. But, doing so will earn you a quick block. Bye.

    Bro found the block button

  • 430 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    B
    I'm not sure who you're referencing to, but I'm assuming you're not referring to me, because I despise the IDF
  • Musk's X sues New York state over social media hate speech law

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 670 Stimmen
    122 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    T
    It's something Americans say.
  • 44 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    S
    I still get calls, but I can't see details (e.g. just the phone number, not the caller).
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 1k Stimmen
    254 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    T
    I use powerpoint all the time. Impress is very far behind in terms of usability and basic functionality. But I'm hopeful it will get better as adoption increases.
  • 182 Stimmen
    39 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    H
    https://archive.org/details/swgrap
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    V
    Here's how you know it's not ready: AI hasn't replaced a single CEO.