I think there's a great divide coming, but in the end, nearly every platform will accept AI-written books. The ones that don't will be niche.
Barnes & Noble CEO Says He Would Support Selling AI-Written Books
I think there's a great divide coming, but in the end, nearly every platform will accept AI-written books. The ones that don't will be niche.
Barnes & Noble CEO Says He Would Support Selling AI-Written Books
if it's going to make them money they'd be stupid not to sell them.
I agree 100%. People will vote with their wallets, and the (ever-diminishing) audience who is opposed to AI in any form, will find niche sites/stores.
But Daunt said that AI-written books are fine provided they say they're AI-written.
And he also said, 'the book and the creativity of authors and the effective cultural dynamism that goes alongside books will remain', so there's some doublethink there. If all books become AI-written, they won't have the creativity and cultural dynamism.
AJ
But Daunt said that AI-written books are fine provided they say they're AI-written.
For now. If there is too much pushback, they'll remove the AI tags to ensure they make a profit.
Trusting any CEO to keep their word when profits are on the line is a very bad life plan.
nearly every platform will accept AI-written books.
I assume the B&N CEO is talking about ebooks and print-on-demand purchased from their online catalogue, not physically on bookstore shelves.
I don't believe AI-written books will be on the bookstore shelves platform for two reasons: 1) the traditional publishers have rejected them, and 2) they cannot be copyrighted. It's a higher cost to put them on shelves and therefore more risk.
I predict the tech companies are going to fight to get AI work copyrightable, with some claim of "human assistance" being sufficient to generate it.
Otherwise, we are likely to see people using the "it was AI generated" as a defense for copyright theft.
I predict the tech companies are going to fight to get AI work copyrightable, with some claim of "human assistance" being sufficient to generate it.
They'll need to change the law, and this probably isn't the best time for Big Tech to lobby Congress about granting AI more 'rights'.
Yes, but... if you have scads of money, there are ways around the law, or ways to get it changed even if Congress is wary.
Yes, but... if you have scads of money, there are ways around the law, or ways to get it changed even if Congress is wary.
Big Tech are not the banking sector (see the Clarity Act). Nor are they Big Pharma. Whole different ballgame.
I agree. Big Tech is now more powerful than the banking sector or Big Pharma were in their prime.
But we're topic drifting, so I'm willing to let this drop.
Big Tech is now more powerful than the banking sector or Big Pharma were in their prime.
I don't think so. I think they are still more powerful than Big Tech, and Banking is about to be deregulated (or more lightly regulated) with Kevin Warsh taking over the Fed Chair.
Big Tech couldn't stop requirements for ID to use the internet (cf., e.g., FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC., ET AL. v. PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, 2025), nor has it stopped the UK's Online Safety Act or similar legislation, such as California's Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.
Not an argument for or against any of those, just evidence Big Tech is not the Banking sector. Not even close.
Why would Big Tech actually want to stop those things?
Getting rid of anonymity by average citizens creates more chokepoints on the internet that Big Tech controls. Maybe if the Government was the one checking the IDs, it'd be different.
Besides, it's not just money. Big Tech has demonstrated they can manipulate elections (via a combination of psyops and controlling what people read and see) and/or vote counting directly.
Once AI gets fully seated into business, the majority of our economy will run through Big Tech. A lot already does thanks to the internet, but that will go past the tipping point where Banking decides what happens economically like it did for most of the 20th Century.
We still may be two decades away from Big Tech pushing for AI copyrights, to bring it back to the original subject, but it's not out of the question in our lifetimes.
Why would Big Tech actually want to stop those things?
Because it wants to get kids addicted to social media?
AJ
Why would Big Tech actually want to stop those things?
Because it ties their hands and subjects them to serious government control. Look at the pushback against the Online Safety Act in the UK. Big Tech and free-expression advocates are going HARD against it, and making little progress.
Otherwise, we are likely to see people using the "it was AI generated" as a defense for copyright theft.
That would be ironic since copyright theft was used extensively to build the AIs in the first place.
AJ
I don't believe AI-written books will be on the bookstore shelves platform
By 'platform' I meant digital source, not 'dead tree'.
But, honestly, it's only a matter of time before some submissions will be good enough to pass whatever tests there are, and if the author says 'no AI was used', how will you prove otherwise?
I've had a story I've wanted to share with people for a long time. But have struggled getting it from my head to paper or screen for online. The concept and the world generated is all mine. So what's the problem if I use AI to help me get it into print to be shared. Isn't that the whole idea to writing, is too share our ideas with those who like to read.
So what's the problem if I use AI to help me get it into print to be shared.
The biggest issue I have is that the language AI generates can be overly florid and forceful. It's a bit like a poor-quality soap opera where the characters SHOUT ALL THE TIME.
Good luck with your endeavour, and I hope you achieve your ambition to get your story in front of an audience.
AJ
And it is so original that you had to post the question in 3 forums. That is a little redundant, much like AI written stories.
So what's the problem if I use AI to help me get it into print to be shared. Isn't that the whole idea to writing, is too share our ideas with those who like to read.
I agree that what matters is the quality of the work and how the story engages the readers. If you can get AI to turn out quality, engaging work, that only takes you so far.
As should be obvious from the forums, there is a significant group of readers who do not want to read AI-generated work. That's their choice, of course, just as it's your choice to use AI.
Bottom line — you do what you think is best, but understand it might not be well received, no matter how good it is, if AI was involved in creating the story.