The second (or is this the third) shoe drops from the robot/AI foot. One of Europe's largest publishers goes all in.

[MattScho]

At this moment, Axel Springer is talking about journalism, but many of the roles he intends to cut and replace with AI apply to any sort of writing.
A quote from a piece in The Guardian:
The newspaper would “unfortunately be parting ways with colleagues who have tasks that in the digital world are performed by AI and/or automated processes”, its owner, Europe’s largest media publisher, Axel Springer SE, said in an email to staff.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ld-to-replace-range-of-editorial-jobs-with-ai
It said the roles of “editors, print production staff, subeditors, proofreaders and photo editors will no longer exist as they do today”, according to the email, seen by the rival Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper (FAZ).

Editors, proof-readers, sub-editors (what we would call copy editors, or simply editors) all exist also in the world of fiction. Even the photo-editor roles are not a long jump to art-director.
So, is this a sign of the times, or the end-times. Are we worried?

 

[Jake E]

At this moment, Axel Springer is talking about journalism, but many of the roles he intends to cut and replace with AI apply to any sort of writing.
A quote from a piece in The Guardian:
The newspaper would “unfortunately be parting ways with colleagues who have tasks that in the digital world are performed by AI and/or automated processes”, its owner, Europe’s largest media publisher, Axel Springer SE, said in an email to staff.
German tabloid Bild to replace range of editorial jobs with AI
It said the roles of “editors, print production staff, subeditors, proofreaders and photo editors will no longer exist as they do today”, according to the email, seen by the rival Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper (FAZ).

Editors, proof-readers, sub-editors (what we would call copy editors, or simply editors) all exist also in the world of fiction. Even the photo-editor roles are not a long jump to art-director.
So, is this a sign of the times, or the end-times. Are we worried?

I doubt it.
If every job get automated - which is definitely possible to do - , there will be no jobs.
No jobs = no wages.
No wages = no consumers
No consumers = no profit.
It would be bad for everyone for AI and automation to take over entirely. More likely, AI will be a tool used by editors et al.

 

[Jonny]

I'm not sure, but on balance and were I in one of those jobs with a family to provide for and a mortgage to pay, I think I would be leaning towards the worried side of the line.

At the end of the day money talks in business, and although Jake's point is well made, I just can't help thinking the greed of some proprietors (journalism) and others who hire in those roles (publishing etc.) may be tempted to see if they can manage without real people.

The whole AI thing is a snowball rolling down a hill at an ever-increasing breakneck speed. Only a few months have passed and our general view on the technology has gone from mildly scathing ambivalence to considerable worry and apprehension.

 

[Jake E]

others who hire in those roles (publishing etc.) may be tempted to see if they can manage without real people

I recon they will scale back. Probably lose a few editors and such and expect AI to do the heavy lifting with the remaining staff.
The same happened on production lines years ago. People replaced by machines, but there still needed to be a human element.

To be honest, if the world really wanted to, they could do away with human labour all together pretty soon.
Professional drivers e.g. bus, train, tram drivers, taxis, delivery drivers could be replaced by self driving cars.
Manufacturing = robots
Mining and logging = robots
Arts : painting, music, poetry, stories could all be done by AI.
Lawyers could be AI easily.
Without the need for skilled labour and no jobs in existence, teaching would be redundant, so no need for them.
Emergency services would probably still need people. Though google is pretty good at being a doctor lol.

But then, in a world like that, there's no need for money. No one's earning and so no one's buying. Labours free, resources are free... There are no overheads.

But it won't happen, because those at the top won't let it.
Because when everyone is rich, no one is.

 

[Jonny]

I recon they will scale back. Probably lose a few editors and such and expect AI to do the heavy lifting with the remaining staff.
The same happened on production lines years ago. People replaced by machines, but there still needed to be a human element.

To be honest, if the world really wanted to, they could do away with human labour all together pretty soon.
Professional drivers e.g. bus, train, tram drivers, taxis, delivery drivers could be replaced by self driving cars.
Manufacturing = robots
Mining and logging = robots
Arts : painting, music, poetry, stories could all be done by AI.
Lawyers could be AI easily.
Without the need for skilled labour and no jobs in existence, teaching would be redundant, so no need for them.
Emergency services would probably still need people. Though google is pretty good at being a doctor lol.

But then, in a world like that, there's no need for money. No one's earning and so no one's buying. Labours free, resources are free... There are no overheads.

But it won't happen, because those at the top won't let it.
Because when everyone is rich, no one is.

You may be right, Jake, and I hope for the sake of those who could lose out that you are. But I saw it happen once before, albeit slightly differently, in architectural design practices. In the 90s I worked as a salesman in building construction so I called on many of these establishments.

Time was there were studios full of draughtsmen / women all on boards working on projects. Not long after AutoCad was introduced and PCs became more of an office tool and prevalent in all clerical processes, those numbers on boards were scythed to a fraction of what they had been.

And of course, dare I say it, the same happened to the (infamous) typing pools. Ubiquitous and essential in every major corporate enterprise around the world.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology and in particular digital tech. I make and record music and I have a home studio now which is infinitely better equipped and at a fraction of the cost of what I had in the old analogue days.

Tech is great, no doubt about it, but in a world that becomes more voraciously greedy and self-centred for profits, almost by the day, I do have significant concerns.

 

[AgentPete]

I think they’ll try it, yes.

But (most) publishers got a lot of key decisions re digital goods & marketing wrong initially, and I think they’ll get this wrong, too. For a while.

Whether LLMs will ever be anything more than mediocre at plot construction and then executing 80,000 words is up in the air. It’s certainly not where the big market is for ChatGPT etc. They’ll be taking aim at expensive professionals (legals, medics, accountants, airline pilots etc) far sooner than they’ll be bothering about redundifying humble authors, methinks…
But I do see this as a rather significant milestone for the self-publishing / human-publishing movement...

 

[MattScho]

I doubt it.
If every job get automated - which is definitely possible to do - , there will be no jobs.
No jobs = no wages.
No wages = no consumers
No consumers = no profit.
It would be bad for everyone for AI and automation to take over entirely. More likely, AI will be a tool used by editors et al.

But if you're first in you see profits soar compared to your compeititon.
The reasoning here is that AI can't create content, but it can suss out factual errors, grammar misuse, poor spelling and can handle formatting.
I wrongly called Axel Springer a he, the he died decades ago, it's a publishing house right now. We've seen signs that the writing industry is heading this way. There are a crap ton of unemployed editors right now, The problem has been a steep decline in quality. But if AI can handle word edits, there's going to be a stampede toward it.
True, eventually it eliminates all jobs, but no one thinks that way. As Springer's press release on this states (though in German) that it will mean $100 million a year in labor cost savings. Companies like labor cost savings.
That said, Bild is a crap publication and quite easy to use as a test balloon. It's readers aren't as interested in quality writing as in whether the King is a space alien baby.

 

[MattScho]

I think they’ll try it, yes.

But (most) publishers got a lot of key decisions re digital goods & marketing wrong initially, and I think they’ll get this wrong, too. For a while.

Whether LLMs will ever be anything more than mediocre at plot construction and then executing 80,000 words is up in the air. It’s certainly not where the big market is for ChatGPT etc. They’ll be taking aim at expensive professionals (legals, medics, accountants, airline pilots etc) far sooner than they’ll be bothering about redundifying humble authors, methinks…
But I do see this as a rather significant milestone for the self-publishing / human-publishing movement...

I agree AI writing this is unlikely (frankly, why, we work so cheap). The difference I could see would be employment within publishing houses. Can AI give the slush pile a quick once over and eliminate 80-95 percent of the thing? Can it do that well? Probably not. But as we note with Harry Potter, humans make more than their share of mistakes in this, as well. If this allows a publisher to retain just their best readers, and have them reading nothing but manuscripts that at least meet a professional standard? We would miss out on the occassional work of genius, but the "we should publish" rate might rise from small to almost frequent. And then if, once that decision is made, AI can design covers, format and get things ready to launch? It is a nightmare scenario.

 

[Pamela Jo]

I agree AI writing this is unlikely (frankly, why, we work so cheap). The difference I could see would be employment within publishing houses. Can AI give the slush pile a quick once over and eliminate 80-95 percent of the thing? Can it do that well? Probably not. But as we note with Harry Potter, humans make more than their share of mistakes in this, as well. If this allows a publisher to retain just their best readers, and have them reading nothing but manuscripts that at least meet a professional standard? We would miss out on the occassional work of genius, but the "we should publish" rate might rise from small to almost frequent. And then if, once that decision is made, AI can design covers, format and get things ready to launch? It is a nightmare scenario.

This has been my thought. Also if an editorial program could be programmed to do some of the things you now have to pay 3k for, then I could see it being worth while. Even just marking where problems need to checked. Too wordy, showing not telling. But to my mind it makes self publishing a really viable alternative to the trad publishers -not so much nightmare as rock and roll creativity.

But for the future and AI not taking all the jobs - capitalism is not a given. In a feudal state consumers are not needed. The 19th century famInes where so many died in Ireland were not because the potatoes crops failed. It was because potatoes were the only thing the landowners allowed the poor Irish to eat. Everything else grown or raised was shipped to England. There was plenty of food. Just no potatoes. The poor werent given food because of the supply side economic theory that Dickens wrote The Christmas Carol to highlight. The same one Reagan and Thatcher made so popular. Giving the poor food would disincentivise them. So the poor Irish built stone walls for some watery charity soup. Or died trying.

Never underestimate the capacity of the wealthy to rationalise starving the have nots.

Have a look at BigBug on Netflix for a pastel coloured future.

 

[TimRees]

Can AI do all the marketing so writers can concentrate on writing? I'm definitely up for that.

 

[MattScho]

If there is a pattern to succesful marketing campaigns, and there probably is, it can probably handle that right now.

 

[Claire G]

AI could scour the internet for bloggers who match your genre and send autonomous requests/overviews of your book for sharing/reviewing. They could target advertisements to individuals who enjoy your genre on social media sites etc. I've done these things manually but it would save a lot of time. My problem with marketing is the cost; I find that when I pay for Amazon Ads, I get consistent sales, but not enough to cover the outlay, so it's pointless. It's frustrating because discoverability is my biggest problem and I can't do this without investing regularly, which I can't afford to do to the extent that the algorithm kicks in and sales become self-perpetuating. Sigh. @AgentPete do you have any thoughts on this issue?

 

[AgentPete]

Can AI do all the marketing so writers can concentrate on writing? I'm definitely up for that.

I don't think it's really up for that atm.
I was very excited by that sort of prospect a few weeks ago, but then I’m a sucker for hype. For a time, at least… until reality gets in the way.
Two sites here show what’s going on:

Futurepedia - The Largest AI Tools Directory | Home

Futurepedia is the largest AI tools directory. Browse 3500+ AI tools in 50+ categories like copywriting, image generation and video editing. Search and filter the tools by categories, pricing and features.

www.futurepedia.io

Future Tools - Find The Exact AI Tool For Your Needs

FutureTools Collects & Organizes All The Best AI Tools So YOU Too Can Become Superhuman!

www.futuretools.io

Yes, there’s a ton of new AI-related websites launching every day. But most of them won’t stick around for more than a few months, because they’re really just marketing front-ends for ChatGPT… often very expensive front ends, too.
I’ve actually tried quite a few of the social media related AI sites out there, and I haven’t found one yet that doesn’t over-promise yet under-deliver.
Letting AI loose with your social media atm is… risky.

AI could scour the internet for bloggers who match your genre and send autonomous requests/overviews of your book for sharing/reviewing. They could target advertisements to individuals who enjoy your genre on social media sites etc. I've done these things manually but it would save a lot of time. My problem with marketing is the cost; I find that when I pay for Amazon Ads, I get consistent sales, but not enough to cover the outlay, so it's pointless. It's frustrating because discoverability is my biggest problem and I can't do this without investing regularly, which I can't afford to do to the extent that the algorithm kicks in and sales become self-perpetuating. Sigh. @AgentPete do you have any thoughts on this issue?

I relate to a lot of that. Short answer – band together with other writers with a mutually-shared readership. I don’t know that’s there’s a working model for that atm, but I think it’s logical and inevitable.

 

[Jake E]

Saw this tweet today.

 

[AgentPete]

Saw this tweet today.

That’s a very serious AI issue generally, another Litopian was talking about it only recently. What we seem to be seeing is ever-more-recursive product: product-of-product-of product… yet nothing original. Grey, grey mush. Ugh.

Ya know, in a few short years, folk like me may be pining for the good ol’human slushpile…

 

[MattScho]

Saw this tweet today.

That's great, it's a problem that just keeps getting worse, and worse. And because the problem is kind of fundamental to the process, it's more of a feature, than a bug

 

[James Charles]

At this moment, Axel Springer is talking about journalism, but many of the roles he intends to cut and replace with AI apply to any sort of writing.
A quote from a piece in The Guardian:
The newspaper would “unfortunately be parting ways with colleagues who have tasks that in the digital world are performed by AI and/or automated processes”, its owner, Europe’s largest media publisher, Axel Springer SE, said in an email to staff.
German tabloid Bild cuts 200 jobs and says some roles will be replaced by AI
It said the roles of “editors, print production staff, subeditors, proofreaders and photo editors will no longer exist as they do today”, according to the email, seen by the rival Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper (FAZ).

Editors, proof-readers, sub-editors (what we would call copy editors, or simply editors) all exist also in the world of fiction. Even the photo-editor roles are not a long jump to art-director.
So, is this a sign of the times, or the end-times. Are we worried?

WALL*E

 

[Pamela Jo]

Oh dear what's Patterson to do now?

 

[AgentPete]

Oh dear what's Patterson to do now?View attachment 15799

I think we all suspect what he's going to try to do...

 

[Pamela Jo]

I think we all suspect what he's going to try to do...

He could have opened a small publishing company instead of stealing the work of other writers, couldn't he? It would have been the same outcome, but his name would be on a publishing company famous for giving writers a break. I read something with his name on it for the boys once, but something about it gave me the creeps. Then I read about his "stable."
"

 

[AgentPete]

Yup. He's not alone, there are a number of operations doing this kind of thing, I've always viewed them quite suspiciously...

 

[MattScho]

He could have opened a small publishing company instead of stealing the work of other writers, couldn't he? It would have been the same outcome, but his name would be on a publishing company famous for giving writers a break. I read something with his name on it for the boys once, but something about it gave me the creeps. Then I read about his "stable."
"

Who was the NYT writer, Pulitzer winner, but turned out he was hiring grad students to do all his reporting, and then "rewriting" their reports to him. (Bragg?) I mean, now he does the same thing, but with books. Sad really, because he was really good. And then he decided it was easier to cheat.
I mean, he wasn't wrong. It is easier, but what's the point?

 

[Pamela Jo]

Who was the NYT writer, Pulitzer winner, but turned out he was hiring grad students to do all his reporting, and then "rewriting" their reports to him. (Bragg?) I mean, now he does the same thing, but with books. Sad really, because he was really good. And then he decided it was easier to cheat.
I mean, he wasn't wrong. It is easier, but what's the point?

Can't disagree. There's a whole Black Mirror episode there. All this has made me go back to examining the value of things. How we assign monetary value and then that becomes the only value. I think if humans are to survive we need to find the intrinsic value in life, the universe and everything. Monetary value changes constantly. In the 80's banks started selling gold because there wasn't enough to back the investment surge unleashed by deregulation. First they chose American homeowner mortgages because what was more secure than the American middle-class? That hit the wall in 2008, but already commodity dealers had shifted to food and the obvious conclusion-arable land with water is the most valuable commodity on earth-but the less there is, the more valuable what is left.