7 ms·

> I see nothing wrong with readers gobbling up AI-written books for the rest of their lives. > Because to me, authenticity makes for a better reading experienc

by scubbo 1mo ago

> I see nothing wrong with readers gobbling up AI-written books for the rest of their lives. > Because to me, authenticity makes for a better reading experience. This pair of sentences gave me pause, until I realised that they're not in contradiction - the author is deliberately non-judgemental of _others_ making a personal choice that _he himself_ would prefer not to make. Remarkably rare, nowadays.

TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago
They are in contradiction, because the author starts by saying how much he enjoyed the Stratemeyer Content Mill books (full disclosure - I did too) and then says that if only he'd known... But he didn't. And it didn't affect his experience until he found out. Which strongly suggests there was nothing wrong with the reading experience, and no lack of "authenticity" in the text itself, on its own terms. It was a chimera. As far as most readers knew, Carolyn Keene, Franklin W. Dixon, and Victor Appleton were all authentically real people. Discovering they weren't didn't change the quality of the writing - it only changed the implied relationship with the author. But that's a parasocial experience, not a feature of the words on the page. I suppose the implication is that because the book went through the mill the author and publisher somehow didn't really mean them. Perhaps they were tainted by money instead of being products of pure enlightened generous impulse. But how can you not mean something like a Tom Swift book? The series was incredibly successful and had real social influence. Would it have been more successful if Victor Appleton wasn't a made-up person? Why do we expect authors to be scrupulously physical, when creating imaginary people and imaginary worlds is literally the job description?
- dmacedo 1mo ago
  While I absolutely agree with your points, and do feel the same towards books I've read and later revisited similar to the ones alluded to. I would echo the transparency of giving readers the choice rather than the thought process that it'll still be enjoyable, therefore the deception is fine. Especially as I feel that more and more this degree of transparency will be crucial for people to make more informed decisions in what they wish to read - and by the author's point, where do they want to spend their money. What if an individual not knowing any better could absolutely enjoy AI written stories from cradle to grave, but would rather live in the blissful innocence of contributing to a lone writers' income rather than content farms? Isn't that enough reason to want transparency here? My point being, if there's really "no harm" in the deception of either human-powered or AI-powered content farms. Then let's opt for imposing the transparency for readers to truly have the choice.
- scubbo 1mo ago
  > Discovering they weren't didn't change the quality of the writing - it only changed the implied relationship with the author. > But that's a parasocial experience, not a feature of the words on the page. So? Consumption of media does not exist in a vacuum - how one feels about the work is inextricably affected by the context in which is was encountered and how one views it. We feel prouder (subconciously or not) of reading works that are considered "great" or "weighty". We feel nostalgia for rereading books from our youth, or affection for a book lent by a loved one. The writer is not saying that the words _themselves_ were changed by the new information, but that his perception and experience of them was. That experience _is still real_. > Why do we expect authors to be scrupulously physical "We" don't. Some people prefer it - others don't care. You're free to fall into the latter camp if you want; but the former is a valid preference, and one which _could_ be served by a market.

by scubbo 1mo ago

TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago

They are in contradiction, because the author starts by saying how much he enjoyed the Stratemeyer Content Mill books (full disclosure - I did too) and then says that if only he'd known... But he didn't. And it didn't affect his experience until he found out. Which strongly suggests there was nothing wrong with the reading experience, and no lack of "authenticity" in the text itself, on its own terms. It was a chimera. As far as most readers knew, Carolyn Keene, Franklin W. Dixon, and Victor Appleton were all authentically real people. Discovering they weren't didn't change the quality of the writing - it only changed the implied relationship with the author. But that's a parasocial experience, not a feature of the words on the page. I suppose the implication is that because the book went through the mill the author and publisher somehow didn't really mean them. Perhaps they were tainted by money instead of being products of pure enlightened generous impulse. But how can you not mean something like a Tom Swift book? The series was incredibly successful and had real social influence. Would it have been more successful if Victor Appleton wasn't a made-up person? Why do we expect authors to be scrupulously physical, when creating imaginary people and imaginary worlds is literally the job description?

dmacedo 1mo ago
While I absolutely agree with your points, and do feel the same towards books I've read and later revisited similar to the ones alluded to. I would echo the transparency of giving readers the choice rather than the thought process that it'll still be enjoyable, therefore the deception is fine. Especially as I feel that more and more this degree of transparency will be crucial for people to make more informed decisions in what they wish to read - and by the author's point, where do they want to spend their money. What if an individual not knowing any better could absolutely enjoy AI written stories from cradle to grave, but would rather live in the blissful innocence of contributing to a lone writers' income rather than content farms? Isn't that enough reason to want transparency here? My point being, if there's really "no harm" in the deception of either human-powered or AI-powered content farms. Then let's opt for imposing the transparency for readers to truly have the choice.
scubbo 1mo ago
> Discovering they weren't didn't change the quality of the writing - it only changed the implied relationship with the author. > But that's a parasocial experience, not a feature of the words on the page. So? Consumption of media does not exist in a vacuum - how one feels about the work is inextricably affected by the context in which is was encountered and how one views it. We feel prouder (subconciously or not) of reading works that are considered "great" or "weighty". We feel nostalgia for rereading books from our youth, or affection for a book lent by a loved one. The writer is not saying that the words _themselves_ were changed by the new information, but that his perception and experience of them was. That experience _is still real_. > Why do we expect authors to be scrupulously physical "We" don't. Some people prefer it - others don't care. You're free to fall into the latter camp if you want; but the former is a valid preference, and one which _could_ be served by a market.