Live data from Hacker News

Scammy AI-Generated Books Are Flooding Amazon

wired.com

111–114 of 114 posts

Re: Scammy AI-Generated Books Are Flooding Amazon

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every once in a while I'll start a session with the AI where I'll just sort of interactively make a story with it and I quite enjoy the process, but the end result is not generally very good as a story.

It might be fun to do a choose-your-own-adventure (CYOA) style of story. Those were never high literature to begin with and most of the fun was seeing where new paths went. An AI-based CYOA could be much more dynamic.

It is. Just tell chat gpt you want to do one and it'll come up with one. It's very polly-anna-ish and eager to please though, so don't expect a lot of drama or tension.

Re: Scammy AI-Generated Books Are Flooding Amazon

#112
post #71

What are the best ways to signal that your content is not AI-generated crap? Will we need to come up with a way to authenticate non-AI content?

Ban pseudonyms. The big issue here is that people are publishing under pseudonyms, meaning it isn't easy to simply block all output from a specific author. If you posting poor quality AI content means potential customers _permanently_ remove you from the pool they buy from, then people will think pretty hard about it, and still put in the effort to proof read the AI stuff they're selling. AI isn't the problem, lack of effort is. If you use AI to draft a story you wrote as dot points, then go through and edit it to improve it? Awesome, im happy to read it. Derivative low effort content is not it though.

Re: Scammy AI-Generated Books Are Flooding Amazon

#113
post #43

This may end up pushing Amazon into a pay-to-play model for publishing. :-/

We've seen this with the Chrome Web Store. With a flat $5 fee, and a limit to how many extensions each account could publish, that was probably pretty effective.

Maybe it would help here too?

What other alternatives could mitigate the problem?

Re: Scammy AI-Generated Books Are Flooding Amazon

#114
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the arguments of "well people didn't like photoshop/cameras/the printing press/etc" is kind of a lazy excuse that ignores the actual criticism being leveled at generative AI systems. AI has removed basically all effort required to just create an image or generate some text. It does take effort to either discern the good from the bad or edit the output using some expertise enough for the content to reach a "pr…

But Photoshop itself is adding generative AI tools, because the simple fact is just typing in a prompt into Midjourney or whatever isn't going to result in a professional quality image. You'll get weird hands, too many arms, etc. So Adobe has the idea that you use generative AI as a starting point after which someone with artistic skills will need to improve it. Just like with any other tool in Photoshop. As for the…

> Your or my opinion on that whether it "should be" is irrelevant.

No it isn't, because many folks live in democracies, and this is a decision that should actually be made and implemented into new law, instead of leaving it to courts to try to apply some outdated laws to a situation they could not possibly have been written for.

Post reply on HN