I was listening to neuroscientists on the SGU science podcast.
I think the devaluing will come from the amount production from AI, and that, in the same way the internet has allowed numbskulls to reinforce the idea that the earth is flat and that Trump is still president, that writing is easy and that skill won’t matter. “Just let the AI do it.” This will make education harder still, I fear.
That only holds until the first ruling that says the publisher and author aren’t liable. After that, lawyers won’t file.
I think many AI asisted works will be self-published on Amazon. They have no current restrictions on AI-generated books. I expect they will make a category for it, so they can crown the bestsellers.
Sure–to rebut a poor conclusion stated as an absolute fact. But I prefer “nit-picky example”–the kind that case law sometimes turns on. 
No, I said in the style of–AI proponents claim that is not plagiarism–and assumed AI randomly generated something close to the real McCoy. Kinda like monkeys typing the encyclopedia, except with AI’s speed, we won’t have to wait a billion years.
Depends on what you call “the book”. What about a large portion? If you wrote a foreword to Pride and Prejudice and then published the volume, I could copy Jane Austen’s words–even a direct photocopy from your volume–and sell it without your permission. (Whether anyone would buy it is irrelevant.)
Ever heard of an appeal?
I agree, and I think in the big picture, it’s an inflection point on the way to a post-writing world. That world won’t happen for decades, but it’s a big step towards it. Certainly business writing and fact-based writing will go away once my AI can talk to your AI directly to communicate salient information that your AI will then package and express in the way you like to receive information.
In a decade or two, we will have become more reliant on AI personal assistants than we are on smartphones now. The internet will cease to be keyboard and mouse driven – everyone will interface directly over a feed optimized for parsing by AI.
Fictional writing for commercial purposes will be largely replaced by AI-generated works as well. Commercial entites that pay fiction writers now are more interested in profit than quality, and in 10 years, AI will be able to write as well as a mid-list writer. Mediocrity will be automated.
The best defense is to both become familiar with AI to remain competitive, and to become a better writer. The best writers will continue to earn a living. AI is going to replace the rest.
Something I don’t see discussed in this mind-numbingly long and repetitive thread is AMAZON’s take on it.
There is already evidence that Amazon is permanently banning some authors for using covers generated with Canva and others. Once banned that’s your self-publishing career effectively dead as they have close to a monopoly.
If you think generating artwork using AI is not going to attract the same Amazon scrutiny, good luck to you.
With the court cases in progress over AI artworks, expect Amazon to cover their arses and ban anyone they even suspect of using AI.
Yes, you can appeal the ban, but you have to have a massive following and deep pockets. I think I could count on the fingers of one hand, the number of successful overturnings of a permanent ban. Their platform, their rules.
They already have a policy on Public Domain text, that the original author only can publish it. Expect them to look closely at any AI derivatives.
Personally, I believe until courts rule and appeals are heard, pretty much ALL the opinions above are just that, opinions. Hanging your self-publishing career on your best guess of the outcome is like playing chicken with a hand grenade.
And to cover the ‘but I’, if you are working through traditional publishing, expect your publisher to cover their arse in EVERY DIRECTION CONCEIVABLE, and put any risk as completely on you as is possible.
Appeals are not endless.
I’m not really worried about any liabiliy issues of using AI. The Big IP companies like Disney want copyright laws that will protect AI-generated material and convey ownership. Prompt-writing and similar behaviors will qualify as authorship, and I expect they will be covered under the WGA MBA.
It doesn’t serve Big IP’s interests to not be able to own IP made with AI. They will sort it all out in just a few years.
Please post a source that conclusively proves this – otherwise it’s a rumor.
Yeah, I’ve said my bit. I’m out. Cheers.
Just be on any of the Facebook KDP forums with people complaining of being banned for just that.
Something tells me that the free Bing version is not quite what I should be stressed with…
I was reading through this thread and just wanted to put all seriousness aside for a second and say that the toaster story has me feeling targeted af. 
I know that some people, writer and and graphic designer, are very critical concerning the use of AI in creative processes, but I am not one of them.
If it’s posted on Facebook, it must be true, right?
I have grave doubts that the authors were banned for this. There’s a lot of nonsense, half knowledge and fake news going around. Graphic artists with extreme protest attitude sometimes spread such stories, others parrot them. So far there has been no official announcement about this in the KDP newsletter, nor a corresponding change in the T&Cs. Until Amazon officially announces something like this, I think this belongs in the world of rumors.
I am going to sidestep the debate above and anchor to the original post only. You note you are using ChatGPT4 to support you “editing texts.” You define “editing” as including:
Personally, I don’t think this is editing any longer. I think this is writing. I would suggest that if ChatGPT4 is used for these purposes you simply list yourself as a co-author and name ChatGPT4 as the other writer.
Well, this argument again. It comes in loops and starts to bother me, because it’s stupid. I suppose you will list yourself as co-author and list your lector and corrector as the writers, because obviously any author uses correction methods in the revision process and even Steven King does not deliver clean writing to be published. I also mentioned that I wrote the original text and only use ChatGPT as a tool. So go on and use your favorite spell-checker and conclude your steps for yourself. I have not asked for your proposals.
My comment is “stupid?” Hmm… You are conflating editing and writing; your King example underscores your error. You are using ChatGPT4 to do both both editing and writing. My “stupid” point is quite simple: Do it. Go ahead. Just declare it. List ChatGPT4 as your co-author. That would be the ethical thing to do. Anyone hiding they used ChatGPT4 for these specific purposes would be unethical.
This discussion is useless
The ethics matter. The bot isn’t sentient, so I am not sure “co-author” is the term to use, but I haven’t another. A citation of use is certainly required, as the original post does describe writing. Wiring is complex, but that definition works. It’s not spellchecking (which could be accepted or denied) it is generating. The author isn’t.
Eh, I’m boggled!
*Writing. I’m sure ChatGPT has complex wiring somewhere, though 
Even if one doesn’t personally care about ethics, behaving ethically is good business sense. Publishers have so many submissions to sort through that “this author is a suspected plagiarist” or “this author lets ChatGPT ‘write’ their books” becomes an easy first-level filter. They won’t give the author a chance to prove their work is “legit,” they’ll just toss the pitch.