Meet Slushy, the agent’s assistant with agency of mind: The implications of QM

[Simon Gant]

The slushy link

That slushy link seems to be about an AI adult entertainment thingy.

Whups! Who knew? So much for that software for agent's idea. Good catch.

 

[buz]

To the extent of this observer's understanding, QM’s little boxes allow the agency to organize the slush pile for a systematic approach to evaluation. There is consumer software now that examines stories for grammar, style, readability, plagiarism, etc.

just because it exists doesn’t mean it works well enough to be useful

Publishizer and Inkitt purport to analyze reader engagement in support of market projections. I have little doubt that publishers and big agencies are developing proprietary AI models to evaluate emotional tone, pacing, and engagement potential.

Seems like it would be a huge waste of money for them to do that given current LLM tech is deeply unprofitable

AI lacks the ability to judge nuance, voice, and originality as a human would, but the field is in its infancy.

I don’t think LLMs are fundamentally capable of doing that in any meaningful way. Meaningless ways maybe but why bother? What’s the point? I mean yeah you could probably automate a slush pile the same way employers are automating resume reviews—but this famously leads to resumes from qualified people being passed over and racial bias. Can’t imagine it would be different here.

I think it would be a largely counterproductive thing to do. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen. But I’m not sure what the point is of the post really. If it doesn’t then whatever; if it does then… I’m sure there will be more authors googling “how to get around AI screeners” just like current job seekers do and it will end up wasting everyone’s time. Idk. Things will happen as they do.

 

[Simon Gant]

Slushy appears to be an AI platform.
Blog by Jane Friedman - AI & the Slush Pile: Lots of Experimenting but No Implementation (Yet)

In my opinion, an inherently unethical tool has no ethical uses until those ethical issues are addressed. AI/LLMs scrape data that should be protected under copywrite with no permission or compensation from those who own the material. AI/LLMs have a severe environmental impact.

I am afraid I would "get ahead" of agents or agencies who use AI to manage slush piles by striking them off my list of potential agents. I would learn to self publish with a plain cover or hire a person to do the cover art (I'm not skilled enough to draw stick figures) before I would use such agents. My opinion. Until the ethical (and possibly legal) issues are addressed, I won't knowingly touch AI/LLMs. FYI: Members are not permitted to share AI text or images (such as for cover art) at AW.

This from the mouth of google's AI (the underlining is mine):
The publishing industry has increasingly embraced artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance various aspects of its operations. As of 2024, approximately 54% of publishers have adopted generative AI for tasks such as content creation and marketing strategies. Financially, the global AI in publishing market was valued at $2.8 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $41.2 billion by 2033, indicating a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 30.8%. This substantial investment underscores the industry's commitment to integrating AI technologies to streamline processes, personalize content, and gain deeper insights into reader preferences.

 

[lizmonster]

This from the mouth of google's AI (the underlining is mine):

You are aware that Google's AI search results are notoriously inaccurate, aren't you? The numbers in particular I would not credit without an outside source.

That said:

Financially, the global AI in publishing market was valued at $2.8 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $41.2 billion by 2033

This is an AI-generated guess, not a fact.

This substantial investment underscores the industry's commitment to integrating AI technologies to streamline processes, personalize content, and gain deeper insights into reader preferences.

And this is an opinion, not a fact.

The things they are selling AI to do are not, by and large, things AI is any good at. That some people are using these tools doesn't change that fact. And it for sure doesn't mean I have to roll over and work with any Tom, Dick, or Mary who decides to use Grand Theft Autocomplete to analyze my work.

 

[Simon Gant]

This from the mouth of google's AI (the underlining is mine):
The publishing industry has increasingly embraced artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance various aspects of its operations. As of 2024, approximately 54% of publishers have adopted generative AI for tasks such as content creation and marketing strategies. Financially, the global AI in publishing market was valued at $2.8 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $41.2 billion by 2033, indicating a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 30.8%. This substantial investment underscores the industry's commitment to integrating AI technologies to streamline processes, personalize content, and gain deeper insights into reader preferences.

I think you hit it on the head. I belief that self-publishing could play a dominate role in the industry if self-publishing could organize. Independant grocers and druggists survived the onslaught of supermarkets by forming supply-side associations such as the Western Family. But that is probably pure whimsy.

 

[Lakey]

Locking for a bit. Stay tuned.


In the meantime, @Simon Gant :

You will have noticed that most folks here are not particularly positive about applications of LLMs to writing and publishing. Arguments in the vein of "well, it's coming, so why not resign yourself and figure out how to use it" have been discussed at length; you can read through the other threads in this forum to get a sense of the general tenor.

That is not to say you should not express your thoughts; rather, it's some context, so that you can understand the vehemence of response you are getting. For the most part, AW is comprised of writers who are not thrilled at the idea of energy-guzzling computers using their own work to render them obsolete. And you are not the first, or even the tenth, new member to arrive in recent months with some variation of "hey, did you ever consider this or that thing about AI?"

There is a tremendous amount of hype around AI, and most of the claims are based upon assumptions and projections of what LLMs and other AI models might be able to do in the future. We've heard a lot of it. Again, I recommend reading the other posts in this room for a sense of where the conversation you are joining is.

 

[RichardGarfinkle]

Mod Note:
This has now been posted in the sticky.
I’m going to add a new requirement for posting about AI:

No AI generated article or statement may be offered as evidence in support of or refutation of any statement .


LLMs do not fact check. Just the opposite. They can produce statements that structurally resemble assertions. But they have no ability to check the veracity of what they are saying.

LLMs are not intelligent enough to know if they are lying.

So, to repeat.
No AI generated article or statement may be offered as evidence in support of or refutation of any statement .

 

[RichardGarfinkle]

Mod Note:

I’ve reviewed this whole thread and I don’t think there’s a substantive discussion going on here, so I’m leaving it locked.