Post

KJ Charles
@kjcharleswriter.com

I mean look at this. Slide 1: "technological benefits" vs "the environmental, social, societal, economic, democratic and ethical impacts for humans and the planet" call me a luddite but I'm struggling to see in what possible way the former could outweigh the *entire shopping list* of the latter.

This post is unavailable.

61 reposts216 likes

NB Kuhn is a pen name
@nbkuhn.bsky.social

This is especially disgusting since I believe at least some UK authors would have gotten screwed over by the AI settlement because it required US copyright. Shouldn't that be their focus???

KJ Charles
@kjcharleswriter.com

Slide 4: "Work mindfully in relation to impact: on human jobs, livelihoods and the environment, investing in people’s skills so that they can share in the benefits." Sorry, who is investing and sharing here? In what ways are publishers using AI to invest in people rather than replace them?

KJ Charles
@kjcharleswriter.com

"Where AI is used, it is used for good: to widen access, inclusion and opportunity and to increase discoverability, helping more creators, from more backgrounds, reach wider audiences..." Explain to me in what way GenAI helps creators reach wider paying audiences. Any way. Any at all.

Nathaniel Spain
@nathanielspain.bsky.social

A use-case is being manufactured to make gen AI necessary in digital marketing. Basically means automating all promotion activities, flooding the internet with noise. It's not so much about giving an advantage to users but disadvantaging folks who don't use it. Heinous.

KJ Charles
@kjcharleswriter.com

"and help to make creative work more accessible to all" --Is this the actual literal Society of Authors parroting "ideas landlords" nonsense here? Or supporting GenAI putting translators and voice actors out of work? Or what?

KJ Charles
@kjcharleswriter.com

It all sounds very positive in isolation from reality, but the SoA is in effect saying that the above lofty goals are possible, likely, and enforceable. And I don't think any of them are. Because supporting jobs and creators is not what AI companies or AI-using publishers want to do.

Nick Harkaway
@nickharkaway.com

Isn't that the point? Publishers are supposed to sign up to this and therefore to using AI (if at all) in a way which doesn't replace or degrade human work? Which, parenthetically, is why I would expect to see very few organisations sign up to it.

KJ Charles
@kjcharleswriter.com

It's offering a figleaf. I expect them all to sign up and then carry on as before while saying they are making "efforts" towards those goals. "Oh we use AI but we're charter signatories so it's okay!" and the Overton window shifts that bit further.

Marie 🇨🇦⚜️
@blammarie.bsky.social

« We used AI at every step of the process and reduced our team of ten to just one person, but look! We published TWO (2) marginalized writers! So actually we are doing so much good and helping authors so so much 😇 » sort of shit

Nick Harkaway
@nickharkaway.com

Given what some houses seem to be doing, I would be pretty surprised if they signed this. Two that I know of won't give any contractual comfort on training, for example.

Ginger Jones
@gingersjones.bsky.social

When chatting AI, I remind myself: According to NASA and historical accounts, John Glenn instructed the team to "get the girl to check the numbers," referring to Katherine Johnson. He reportedly added, "If she says they're good, then I'm ready to go".

Max
@majuuorthrus.bsky.social

Also: the way people see Muppets as "real people" rather than puppets, to the point that lapel mics will be attached to the puppets rather than the performer. Humans are great at thinking non-sapient objects are sapient Which is excellent for puppetry, but when it's applied to AI chatbots...