I meant only that if a story sucks, or is plagiarized, it should be weeded out on that basis, not because the author is or is not an A.I. or an intelligent, drug-crazed cockroach.
In Roald Dahl’s short story, I mean “The Great Automatic Grammatizator”, it was the legions of mediocre and second-rate writers who were forced to eventually put their names on AI-generated stories, because they realized the A.I. stuff was ultimately better than their own.
…and when submissions jump to this degree:
And that big jump can be directly attributed to AI generated generic content, and ALL of those stories will suck AND probably will contain elements that are borrowed or outright plagiarised, I think it’s sensible to weed out the AI submissions.
Yeah, but that’s just a story. Its fiction. It isn’t real.
In the real world the AI stuff is garbage. The AI stuff is only ultimately better than the average tech-bro who is learning how to use AI prompts. But that’s about it.
For now.
…when it changes, make sure to let Clarkesworld know.
In theory, this is true. In practice: what @Riemann and @Banquet_Bear have said.
And @Darren_Garrison, thanks for your link. It helps, a little, to answer the question “Why in the hell would people do that?”
IMHO, it would take extremely sophisticated AI, far beyond anything we have now, to write a story that was both good and original.
Because:
Then we agree.
I was asking why editors should reject a story because based on its authorship.
That graph is the number of bans they’ve issued, not their submission volume.
Exactly. Editors know how to reject stories that don’t suit their publication. That’s a task they’ve been doing for years. Asking editors to discern whether or not a story’s author is human is not something they’re skilled at. And it’s irrelevant to their purpose of finding good stories.
…I don’t think we do. Because based on everything I’m reading from the Clarkeworld twitter account they are taking a very strong stand against AI generated stories because that takes away opportunities from writers, both experienced and new to the industry. There is a difference between “quality” and “editorial standards.” An AI might submit the best story in the world, but they wouldn’t publish it because the magazine requires human authorship.
You said nothing about authorship. It was about what buyers want.
I suspect AI submissions and bans are closely linked. This tweet talks about the volume of submissions. They are getting overwhelmed.
They mention submissions here in reference to that particular chart.
Ah. Thanks. Did it seem to you that Banquet_Bear might have thought the other thing? 'Cos it seemed that way to me.
Please see my original post:
I apologize for lack of clarity.
…oddly, this opens up another huge can of worms.
Is that what we are calling what makes up probably about 100% of the fiction market now? “Organic stories?”
Those are just stories. Written by people. We haven’t really established yet that AI can consistently write stories that will generally be regarded as “good” yet. There isn’t an established market for this.
And until that happens it is much too early to be talking about normal stories written by people as a subset of stories yet. AI generated stories are the subset. And nobody are really reading those yet. Because they aren’t very good and outside of clickbait they don’t make any money.
The rest are just stories.
I mean seriously: “there might be a market for organic stories?” Its the only market at the moment.
This sci-fi writer has an interesting take on AI writing:
If an article is paid for, who gets paid?
The guy who buys the program?
The person who wrote the program?
Perhaps the person or persons the program stole from?
That’s another really good point - since these stories are put together using other stories as training data, the AI might have a propensity towards plagiarism, and the submitter would have no idea if the story had plagiarized elements. That would put the whole burden on Clarkesworld to figure it out
The problem as I see it is that the humans who are submitting AI generated works are trying to make a quick buck. They hash together a quick idea, run it through an AI that someone else created, and try to get a quick few hundred bucks, without actually having to do the work to write the thing.
Clarkesworld pays what they pay ($0.12 per word) because they feel that people who bust their ass writing excellent fiction deserve to be compensated for that effort.
Even if AI can write a GREAT story, who should get the $600 for a 5,000 word story? Should it really be the clown who typed “Write me a 5,000 word story about Mars” into ChatGPT?
The editors at Clarkesworld then have to deal with a tsunami of submissions because submissions are now effortless. They’re effectively being spammed by bots, and good on them for putting a stop to it.
That’s a big issue. The copyright office says AI stories are not copyrightable. So if you publish one, anyone else could publish it without payment.
Here’s Legal Eagle’s take on AI and copyright, plagiarism, and other legal issues.
If AI writing (and art) get good enough to be indistinguishable from professional-quality work, it is going to be disruptive. As in “destroy entire industries and business models”.