Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
41
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Really?
« Last post by Hopscotch on July 10, 2024, 05:51:05 AM »
  Artists will always have a place [in PJ's idealized AI world] because there's always going to be demand for their insights.

But won't perfected AI provide "insights" sufficient for readers happy reading AI flash-and-trash?
42
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Really?
« Last post by Lorri Moulton on July 10, 2024, 02:37:06 AM »
I think it's interesting that our outlooks seem to reflect our genres. 

My outlook is that there is plenty of room for authors wanting to tell their stories.  I'm not worried about how many other authors (AI and human) are out there, because I'm not competing against them.  I just work on making the next story fun and interesting...the rest will take care of itself.
43
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Really?
« Last post by PJ Post on July 09, 2024, 10:44:37 PM »
I'm inclined to a more optimistic view myself. The result I'm mentioning is assuming for the sake of argument that all your premises are correct. How do you reconcile any kind of optimism with your often-stated belief that AI will just keep getting better from here?

Because I believe there will always be a place for artists. Let's face it, lots of self-publishers don't give a sh*t about literature. It's just an easy internet business. I say this all the time - if they could make more money selling t-shirts, they'd do that.

So, let's not confuse the get-rich-quick-schemers (gray and black hatters) with what we might think of as traditional writers - artists with something to say.

Artists will always have a place because there's always going to be demand for their insights.

That's as optimistic as it gets.


Quote
Usually, customers who want handmade goods are willing to be more. It's an upscale market. If we assume the same will be true in literature, isn't it more likely that authors who are household names will snag most of that market?

No. Most household names don't market themselves. What are they going to do when the publishing world implodes? What happens when they lose their support systems and more importantly - their advances?

Also, how confident are you that these household names have insights that folks want to read about?


Quote
I agree with the notion that writers who have something to say are normally at an advantage, but in the kind of constrained market that you're talking about, the power of name recognition will more heavily influence the odds. The tendency of upscale buyers is to look for luxury brands. There's still enough bias against self publishing for me to think authors who have a major label behind them will do better. And an upscale buyer is more likely to go with Stephen King than Joe You've-Never-Heard-of-Me Horror Writer.

This is old think - applying old norms to new market conditions. The luxury brand analogy isn't a one to one here.

Remember, I'm on board with branding strategies and finding our tribe. My tribe will buy my books over Stephen King's because they're my tribe, not his. My tribe has no concerns over self-publishing.


Quote
Since traditional journalism is already shrinking fast, we can see a sample of what's happening on Substack. A lot of journalists are there, but the people who were already recognized names are the ones raking in the subscription bucks, $5 million a year in one case. Certainly, they have something to say. But the fact that they're recognizable names puts them way ahead of people who have something to say but not a very high profile.

Fair enough. But how many of these writers are following a branding strategy and engaging with their tribe? I'm guessing next to none because, for whatever reason, this isn't something writers do.


Quote
Probably, most of us aren't going to get rich regardless of what happens. But creatives have only really gotten rich for a relatively short period of time in the modern era. The norm is for creatives to scrape by unless patronized by the very wealthy--and even then, they aren't exactly wealthy themselves, just better off.

I'd be fine with AI in a decent ethical framework as a useful tool. But your own premises make it hard to imagine how that can happen.

I agree that getting rich through our creativity is becoming more and more rare. We have to have the passion first, and then maybe we can earn cubicle money.

As for ethics...do you own a smart phone? Sneakers? Drive a car? Buy plastics? Wear clothes? Eat vegetables? The world is an ethical mess when it comes to consumerism, between abusive labor practices and companies literally making the planet uninhabitable, where do we draw the line? I get standing up for Creatives, because that's us, right? But AI isn't even in the running when it comes to the worst offenders.


Quote
Now, if ChatGPT as quoted by Post-Crisis D is correct, we're talking about a very different situation. But that isn't the situation you've been presuming, at least as far as I can tell.


I posted this before - all AI - from a text prompt, seems pretty creative to me:

44
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Really?
« Last post by Bill Hiatt on July 09, 2024, 09:51:49 PM »
The small number of authors who will survive in that environment will be the big-name trad authors.

Still nope.

The authors that survive will be the ones with something to say - assuming they can find their audience. But even then, we're looking at a boat-load of writers. Can they sustain a career? Maybe. Will they get rich? Probably not. I think those days are long gone for most Creatives.
I'm inclined to a more optimistic view myself. The result I'm mentioning is assuming for the sake of argument that all your premises are correct. How do you reconcile any kind of optimism with your often-stated belief that AI will just keep getting better from here?

In other professions in which automation largely took over, the number of people remaining to cater to customers who still want handmade goods is tiny. What's the logic behind assuming that writers will be different in that regard? At best, I'm not sure we can confidently predict how many people there are spaces for in such a situation.

Usually, customers who want handmade goods are willing to pay more. It's an upscale market. If we assume the same will be true in literature, isn't it more likely that authors who are household names will snag most of that market? I agree with the notion that writers who have something to say are normally at an advantage, but in the kind of constrained market that you're talking about, the power of name recognition will more heavily influence the odds. The tendency of upscale buyers is to look for luxury brands. There's still enough bias against self publishing for me to think authors who have a major label behind them will do better. And an upscale buyer is more likely to go with Stephen King than Joe You've-Never-Heard-of-Me Horror Writer.

Since traditional journalism is already shrinking fast, we can see a sample of what's happening on Substack. A lot of journalists are there, but the people who were already recognized names are the ones raking in the subscription bucks, $5 million a year in one case. Certainly, they have something to say. But the fact that they're recognizable names puts them way ahead of people who have something to say but not a very high profile.

Probably, most of us aren't going to get rich regardless of what happens. But creatives have only really gotten rich for a relatively short period of time in the modern era. The norm is for creatives to scrape by unless patronized by the very wealthy--and even then, they aren't exactly wealthy themselves, just better off.

I'd be fine with AI in a decent ethical framework as a useful tool. But your own premises make it hard to imagine how that can happen.

Now, if ChatGPT as quoted by Post-Crisis D is correct, we're talking about a very different situation. But that isn't the situation you've been presuming, at least as far as I can tell.
45
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Really?
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on July 09, 2024, 12:39:53 PM »
I wondered what AI "thought" about the topic.

Question: Will AI replace human creativity?

ChatGPT:
Quote
AI is unlikely to replace human creativity entirely. While artificial intelligence systems have demonstrated impressive capabilities in various creative tasks such as generating art, music, poetry, and even writing stories, there are several aspects of creativity that remain distinctly human and challenging for AI to fully replicate:

  • Originality and Novelty: Human creativity often involves generating novel ideas and concepts that break away from established patterns or conventions. AI, while proficient at analyzing existing data and patterns, struggles with true originality and generating entirely new ideas that transcend existing frameworks.
  • Emotional and Contextual Understanding: Creativity often involves understanding and expressing complex emotions, cultural nuances, and contextual relevance. AI lacks genuine emotional experiences and struggles to comprehend and integrate these elements into creative outputs in a way that resonates authentically with human audiences.
  • Intuition and Insight: Human creativity often relies on intuitive leaps, insights, and serendipitous connections between disparate ideas or concepts. While AI can analyze vast amounts of data and identify correlations, it typically lacks the intuition and subtle understanding that humans bring to creative processes.
  • Personal and Cultural Identity: Creativity is deeply intertwined with personal experiences, cultural influences, and individual perspectives. AI lacks personal identity and consciousness, which are crucial in shaping authentic creative expression that reflects human diversity and depth.
  • Critique, Adaptation, and Evolution: Human creativity involves iterative processes of critique, adaptation, and evolution based on feedback and changing contexts. While AI can optimize based on predefined objectives, it often struggles with adaptive creativity that responds dynamically to evolving challenges and opportunities.

That being said, AI can certainly augment and enhance human creativity by providing tools for inspiration, collaboration, and automation of repetitive tasks. AI-generated content can also serve as a source of inspiration or a starting point for further human creativity. Ultimately, the collaboration between AI and human creativity is likely to be synergistic rather than one-sided, with each contributing unique strengths to creative endeavors. Therefore, while AI will influence creative industries and practices, it is improbable that it will replace the depth and breadth of human creativity in its entirety.
46
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Really?
« Last post by PJ Post on July 09, 2024, 11:57:09 AM »
The small number of authors who will survive in that environment will be the big-name trad authors.

Still nope.

The authors that survive will be the ones with something to say - assuming they can find their audience. But even then, we're looking at a boat-load of writers. Can they sustain a career? Maybe. Will they get rich? Probably not. I think those days are long gone for most Creatives.
47
It is a problem, just as you suggest, to hit the spacebar to align things rather than using styles. I wouldn't have thought of justification as causing a problem, but perhaps in Jan's case, it did.

Justification adjusts the spacing to align the words left and right.  So, if spaces are used to position words, things won't align once justification is used.

And things can change from system to system even with the same file.  But, with tab stops or the default settings for bulleted lists in Word and Pages, words will remain in the same position from system to system.

But, for best results, it is best to use a PDF rather than a Word document.  The way the PDF looks will remain the same from system to system, excepting cases where the PDF was setup improperly.  So, whether you used spaces or tab stops or styles to setup your document is immaterial to the PDF.  If the PDF looks right on your end, it's going to look right on the other end as well, excepting for those cases where something was configured improperly for the creation of the PDF.

Thanks.
As mentioned above I saved the Word document as a PDF so they are the same. I'm meeting with the printers tomorrow so I will ask their advice.  :)
48
I could be wrong, but I think both Word and Pages apply some kind of default style to bulleted list items.

It is a problem, just as you suggest, to hit the spacebar to align things rather than using styles. I wouldn't have thought of justification as causing a problem, but perhaps in Jan's case, it did.

Jan, one possibility would be to select each bulleted list, change to left-justify and see what happens. If the output still looks quirky, try unapplying and then reapplying bulleted list mode.  That might not work, since we aren't 100% sure what caused the problem. Give it a try and see.

Oh, you can see what you might have done by making hidden characters visible. Added spaces will appear as dots in the middle of the line. Removing any between the bullet and the text may also solve the problem. Or it may demonstrate that you didn't add extra spaces in the first place, which at least eliminates a possibility.

Thanks.
I have made hidden characters visible and I can see that sometimes the little dots are close together and sometimes they are spaced further apart. If I try to delete or change them it just messes everything up. I can't even remember how I did it in the first place as I just converted it from the Kindle version. The Kindle version had the text centred and the bullet points are ok. I changed it to justified for the print version and that's when they got messed up.  But the numbering is ok.
I saved the Word version as a PDF so they look the same.
Changing to left didn't work.
I spent such a long time getting the pages and page breaks right so I'm concerned that I will mess all that up if I make any radical changes. I'm meeting with the printers tomorrow so I can discuss the problem with them. :)


49
Formatter's Forge [Public] / Re: Bullet list justified text looking odd
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on July 09, 2024, 02:12:47 AM »
It is a problem, just as you suggest, to hit the spacebar to align things rather than using styles. I wouldn't have thought of justification as causing a problem, but perhaps in Jan's case, it did.

Justification adjusts the spacing to align the words left and right.  So, if spaces are used to position words, things won't align once justification is used.

And things can change from system to system even with the same file.  But, with tab stops or the default settings for bulleted lists in Word and Pages, words will remain in the same position from system to system.

But, for best results, it is best to use a PDF rather than a Word document.  The way the PDF looks will remain the same from system to system, excepting cases where the PDF was setup improperly.  So, whether you used spaces or tab stops or styles to setup your document is immaterial to the PDF.  If the PDF looks right on your end, it's going to look right on the other end as well, excepting for those cases where something was configured improperly for the creation of the PDF.
50
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Really?
« Last post by TimothyEllis on July 09, 2024, 01:42:08 AM »
Anyone who has an existing fan base will presumably keep that fan base.

Those keeping their fans happy, shouldn't see too many effects.

The biggest danger I see is Bot books becoming a standard 99c, and destroying the price structure in place now.

But that might be viewed as a quality indicator as well, and not happen. KU views 99c like that a lot of the time. Cheap is crap quality mentality.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »