Posted on

AI Threatens Publishers & Writers

AI in Book PublishingArtificial Intelligence (AI) already affects writers and the publishing industry. However, the recent release of ChatGPT threatens authors’ livelihoods on a whole new level.  In a Publisher’s Weekly opinion piece, electronics publisher Thad McElroy calls the recent innovations in AI a “game changer.” He believes “every function in trade book publishing today can be automated with the help of generative AI.” And if this assertion is true, “the trade book publishing industry as we know it will soon be obsolete. We will need to move on.”

Death knells for the publishing industry have sounded before. Remember word processors, automated printing, and “Print Is Dead”?  McElroy does, and other writer/publishers seem to agree with him. For example, Dave Chesson at Kindlepreneur gmailed that the cost for Amazon’s print-on-demand service is schedeuled  to increase on June 20th. This decision affects writers and publishers alike. If the industry’s need to move  on is real, the question becomes “To What?”

Alternatives

To thwart the apocalypse before it happens, McElroy offers a nuanced analysis of the problem with a pragmatic solution. Since AI promises to take over all the production aspects of publishing, it’s best for everyone involved to accept that fact and discover the opportunities ChatGPT and its kindred programs provide. In terms of the book-production process, for example, McElroy equates the current situation to 1988 when publishers linked the MacIntosh computer to the Linotype printer.  Dramatic increases in output resulted in exchange for increased editorial errors and mediocre page design. But readers accepted this “good enough” product quality in exchange for easier access and wider availability of resources.

Acceptable Quid Pro Quo?

Whether this exchange was equitable remains debatable. For his part, McElroy Definition of Quid Pro Quo itemizes the opportunities AI offers in terms of acquisitiion, production, and marketing. In his view, AI could depose Amazon, the over-charging, 800-pound gorilla in the publishing industry. While independent publishers like him might welcome the overthrow of their competition, individual entrepreneurs, writers, and artists could find themselves shoved further down down the publicity and marketing chain.  McElroy’s  analysis is astute, but relies heavily on his approach of book publishing being an information-dispensing industry.

Making a Choice

For authors, particularly fiction writers, the question boils down to what inspired them to become writers in the first place? Was their decision based on the promise of fame and fortune? Or because they needed to express themselves, to write something no one had ever said or thought before? Was their choice inspired by images carefully crafted on the page or by graphs and equations neatly presented on an I-pad?

George Bernard Shaw in 1911As individuals, people respond to differIent stimuli differently. George Bernard Shaw once claimed “It is the mark of the truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics.” Most of us, however, are not so swayed nor sympathetic to their impact. To impel action, people need the emotional stimulus that well-honed words on the page provide. Most of us, writers and readers included, remember a favorite book or story that stimulated our imaginations, one that prompted us to write something as good, as beautiful, as true.

A Personal Note

For me, that story was Walter Farley‘s The Black Stallion. In its honor I created a coverThe Black Stallion binder for my proposed work, Black Phantom. The binder remained empty for years, however, because I had no access to horses of any kind. Finally, when the chance to ride one did happen, I clung to the saddle horn for all I was worth while the horse galloped back to its stall for a fresh bucket of oats. However, the action, the adventure, the thrill of that incident stayed with me. Like Farley’s narrative of a boy’s enduring love for his horse, these qualities inspired the path I’ve chosen these many decades later.

This is not to say others of a more analytical bent cannot be inspired by facts and figures derived out of the multiverse of mental calculations. One of my favorite scientific authors, Carl Sagan, was at home in the professional realms of astrophysics and education. His respect for science and logical thinking came through in every book he wrote. But, his  passion did, too. In his most popular book, Cosmos, Sagan’s awe for the universe and its mysteries flies off every page, stimulating and resonating his audience with its own.

The Decision

Pros & Cons of a DecisionFor these individuals and the people inspired by them, “good enough” is not acceptable.  Publishing information remains limited to the quality and accuracy of its sources. The 1960s adage, “Garbage In, Garbage Out” (GIGO), still holds true. Currently, Chatbot writing, no matter how proficient or well-supported, cannot be as affective as human writing because it has no soul, no sense of self to be inspired by directed words on a page. To be certain, it can define the word “metaphor” and provide examples of one, but it can’t deliver one that moves human readers because it has no feelings of its own to be moved.

The reading public already drowns at the firehose of information provided by the predecessors of artificial intelligence. Do they wish to be inundated by the information tsunami that ChatGPT threatens to unleash? Probably not. Yet, the answers to such questions remain to be answered. As participants in the publishing world, everyone must decide which choice will insure our survival. As with so many other issues in this uncertain world, make your best informed decision, then wait and see.

What do you think? Put your response in the Leave a Reply section below.

[mailerlite_form form_id=2]

Posted on

Discover Media You Can Trust

Discover Media You Can TrustIn your reading, did you discover media you can trust? Do they cite their sources and check their facts? Or do such constraints seem to get in the way of a good story, convincing opinion, or solid argument?

Reading Reservations

These reservations among others occurred to me while following the links in a story about Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that appeared in the Science & Technology section of the news website 1440.  The snippet contained two articles which contained stories about artificial intelligence ChatGPT programs creating biased narratives about a conservative American professor and an Australian shire mayor. The programs falsely accused the former of sexually harassing his students and the latter of accepting bribes before he ran for office. Two tawdry instances among many others that show artificial intelligence programs cannot be trusted–right?

Following the reference trailDown the Rabbit Hole

Perhaps. But dig a little deeper and it turns out that the updated bersion of the bot story correctly identified the mayor as a whistle blower who “was not involved in the payment of bribes.” As for the professor’s implication that the reason why a ChatGPT made up a quote, cited a non-existent article, and referenced a false claim against him is because “the algorithms are no less biased and flawed than the people who program them.”  However, his claim that  “recent research has shown ChatGPT’s poltical bias” fails to stand up against even casual scrutiny. Following the link to his source reveals that quote comes from an article, “Danger in the Machine: The Perils of Political and Demographic Biases Embedded in AI Systems” which appears on the website for MI, an abbreviation for the Manhattan Institute.

More Sleuthing

Detective workOK. At this point, case closed. Or is it? One instance appears on the BBC News web page, the other on the web page of a “leading free market think tank.” Both sources for these links appear reliable, but consider the context in which these articles appear. The BBC is government-owned entity renowned for being “the world’s oldest newscaster” according to Wikipedia;  MI or the Manhattan Institute, formerly the Manhattan Iinstitute for Policy Research, formerly the International Center for Economic Policy Studies, is a conservative think tank originally founded in support of supply-side economics and privitization of government services during president Reagan’s administration. Two less-in-common resources would seem likely to be paired in the same article.

The Conundrum

Does this mean both viewpoints are equally valid? Or do both contain biases of their own that mitigate anyMBFC logo objective evaluation of the issue? My procedure: when in doubt in the 21st century, conduct a Google search. The first result of a “media bias” search turned up Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) whose first menu item contains a list of nine bias categories in a continuum ranging from Least Biased to Left Biased to Right Biased to Conspiraacy-Pseudoscience.  Each of these categories identifies media outlets, newspapers, websites, and social platforms in alphabetical order from around the world. Each entry is measured and evaluated against a system of standards designed to measure the source’s objectivity, honesty, and reliability.

Site Evaluations

How did the two web sites measure up? About as expected. The BBC ranked slightly left of center on the bias scale, their credibility  marred only by their occasional use of emotion-laden headlines and some questionable. left-leaning sources.  The Manhattan Institute received a Right bias rating that almost reached Extreme due to their lack of transparency about their funding, their use of poor sources, and one failed fact check. The overall result showed the BBC wavered very slightly to the left of the center point denoting complete objectivity on the MBFC continuum while MI landed on the Extreme right of the MBFC continuum because of its blatant promotion of right-leaning philosophies and causes.

Take-aways

What does this investigation show?

  1. Tracking down the credibility of content and its sources can be a time-consuming rabbit-hole of a search.
  2. Even the most reliable sources can fall victim to sensationalized claims and headlines.
  3. Some news outlets (Radio Free Europe and Al-Jazeera come to mind) are not the biased sources their detractors claim them to be.
  4. Many impostor sites, both human and AI-written, dispense false information under such banal titles such as the Southwest Minnesota Herald (Metric Media alone drives over a thousand of such impostor web sites that look like legitimate local news sources).
  5. Though alphabetical, MBFC’s listings tend to cluster around T and A because initial articles are included as part of the title.

Note of Warning

Chatbot logoMBFC is only one of several sites devoted to information objectivity and bias-identification. Many media experts regard Snopes as the gold standard in this area. MBFC has its flaws to be sure, e.g. its founder admits that its grading scale is by no means rigorous or scienfific. Still, it does identify and evaluate unexpected and unknown sources which contextualizes the information you and I read and base our opinions/decisions. If an article or website tells a good story or promotes a strong opinion, MSFC is one place you can consult to evaluate the quality and reliabity of the content these media sources use in telling it.

What do you think? Tell us in the Leave a Reply section below.