Publisher's Synopsis
⦁What is the edit and review skill difference between AI and human authorThis is surely just the beginning. The 'write and publish faster' model will soon be broken. You cannot write as fast as AI. It doesn't get tired or burn out and it can consume millions of academic papers or books much faster than you can read. Publishers are not charities and authors are basically content creators, writing products to be sold. An in-house proprietary creative AI will work constantly with no hand-holding and no need to be looked after in any way. Of course, human editorial will be more important for choosing topics and shaping the direction of production, as well as editing the finished product, but expect far more content creation by AIs over time. If you are a freelance writer doing work that does not have a personal stamp on it, check my thoughts below on doubling down on being human. Copyright law will be challenged as books are used to train AIs which then produce work in the voice of established authors. AI has exploded in the last few years because of two main developments: deep learning and big data. Of course, the problem then becomes the dataset you train it on, as we have already seen with the social media bots that end up spouting hate speech because they learn it from humans. Curation of the learning dataset is key, as well as the objective you set the AI. For example, what if my objective is to write a bestselling horror novel - and what if I give the AI the entire Stephen King backlist to learn from? I could probably do a rudimentary version of that right now with AWS Amazon Comprehend (which discovers insight and relationships in text) and then utilize a Natural Language Generation [Wikipedia] tool like GPT2, considered so dangerous that it has not been released (OpenAI), but of course, many other such tools will be created.For more on AI assisted creativity, how long does it take a human to create a first draft? And how much more do you have to look after that human? Will big film and TV care if they use an AI for the next iteration of a superhero franchise? This type of AI creative scenario is already being questioned for the music industry. If I train an AI on the works of Stephen King and it writes a new book with no single sentence that is plagiarized, but is clearly in the 'voice' of King, who owns the copyright on that book? Currently, the view is that non-humans can't have copyright [Robotics Law Journal], but Stephen King didn't write the book, so do I own it? Or does the company that created the AI tool? So if you are as an author use the Stephen King generator model to write a new book, can I own that copyright? Can I publish that book under my own name? Personally, I think this is a form of plagiarism. It uses Stephen King's hard work to train an AI for my own purposes. Since I love his work, I want King himself to be rewarded for it and continue to create, but many do not share the ethical boundaries that I do, and of course, ethics are not legality anyway.As an author, I'm excited by these possibilities. I would love to build a natural language generation model based on my books. I'd use that to help me generate first drafts based on adding new ideas to the mix. Perhaps I would even license that model to others to write books and take a percentage of the income. However, AI Deep learning needs a lot of data, so books by one author would not be enough to train a model, at least right now. It's more likely that a genre-specific publisher with rights to a whole catalog could train a model based on the AI writer's writing effort or review opinion whether it is better than human author's review or writing effort., if the publisher decides to apply AI writer to replace human author.