The End of Publishing as We Know It

Comments

• beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I often wonder about the stuff I write, what becomes of it. It’s a little disheartening since I love crafting it for best effect… But especially with computer books for beginners, people prefer to ask AI for the answers instead of studying.

  I also just bought 6 sci-fi books from an author I’d never heard of for cheap. I love supporting indy authors, the price was right, and they sold their books directly from the website, no middlemen and no DEI. Perfect.

  But was the author real? I actually did a bunch of research to find out their history and all that before pulling the trigger. I really don’t want to read AI stories. But I can see a future where the vast majority don’t care. Imagine an endless episode of Survivor or a soap opera, completely generated 24x7 forever. You know that shit would be massive.

  And there might only be a fringe that seeks human-generated content for the humanity of it.

  source

  • aln@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What do you mean by “no DEI”?

    source

    • beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Lol… I wanted “DRM”. But it’s been a long day.

      source
    • NotProLemmy@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No DEez nuts Included

      /s

      source
• SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  AI companies than blog and social-media posts. (Ziff Davis is suing OpenAI for training on its articles without paying a licensing fee.) Researchers at Microsoft have also written publicly about “the importance of high-quality data” and have suggested that textbook-style content may be particularly desirable.

  If they want quality data then, don’t kill them. Secondly, if they want us as gig workers providing content for AI, don’t act surprised when people start feeding gibberish. It’s already happening, llm are hallucinating a whole lot more than the earliest gpt 3 models. That means something, they just haven’t thought about it long enough. If a reasoning model gets stuff wrong 30 to 50% of the time, with peak of 75% bullshit rate, it’s worthless. Killing good journalism for this is so dumb.

  source

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If you want quality data, then don’t kill them

    That is like telling cancer that if it wants to live it shouldn’t kill the host.

    You’re asking a lot from people without the ability to think about anything else than themselves

    source
  • floofloof@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If it gets wrong enough, people will stop using it. So it would be in the interests of AI companies to pay for good sources of data.

    Or at least you’d hope that. In actual fact they’ll be thinking: let’s keep stealing because most people don’t know or care whether what the AI says is true. Besides, they can make money by transforming it into a tool for disseminating the views of those rich enough to pay.

    source