At some of the big houses I think there's already been a transition to thinking in terms of content, rather than books (and ancillary revenue streams, etc.).
How do they make $$$$$ from "content"? Like Kindle? Ancillary revenue streams meaning T-shirts? Licensed tattoos? Personal appearances? I hate to ask you to explain, but curious . . .
Well, on the other end of the AI equation, Oxford and some other presses are licensing their content to train LLMs, which would be a big example. It's bad stuff, but I think it's worth stressing the context—that academic libraries have essentially stopped buying books, that there's a techno-libertarian insistence publishers give books away free, etc.
I’m positive you’re right. And what ruination! I’ve been having quite a bit of hindsight in this realm… publishing and studio layoffs that looked like “one thing,” but were an AI replacement strategy. I’ve worked with Oxford for decades, and I’ll be contacting them. The funny thing is, the people I’m most likely to be speaking with — editors, contract dept, everyone under the C-suite— are the most likely to be on the AI chopping block themselves.
So far as I know, publishers were using templates for most fiction and nonfiction books by the 1990s. That means maybe five designs for the art directors to choose from for all books. I had a friend who was head of the design department at Simon & Schuster who told me this. Only the books they expected to sell well would get an original design or specialty books like art books, cookbooks, and some craft books, or what are called in the trade “coffee table books.” These last ones are various kinds of subject matter. Point is, they are decorative and meant to be displayed. So I’m not sure how much of a decline in quality AI would bring to this job. What it would do is take paying jobs away from people. As I also recall, OUP was known for underpaying its employees. I guess they thought people were supposed to be so thrilled about working there they didn’t require a living wage.
Who do they think will buy the bloody books?
At some of the big houses I think there's already been a transition to thinking in terms of content, rather than books (and ancillary revenue streams, etc.).
How do they make $$$$$ from "content"? Like Kindle? Ancillary revenue streams meaning T-shirts? Licensed tattoos? Personal appearances? I hate to ask you to explain, but curious . . .
Well, on the other end of the AI equation, Oxford and some other presses are licensing their content to train LLMs, which would be a big example. It's bad stuff, but I think it's worth stressing the context—that academic libraries have essentially stopped buying books, that there's a techno-libertarian insistence publishers give books away free, etc.
Can't see any of this ending well for anyone, even the few who plan to use the profits to go to Mars. Or whatever. Thanks, Derek.
I’m positive you’re right. And what ruination! I’ve been having quite a bit of hindsight in this realm… publishing and studio layoffs that looked like “one thing,” but were an AI replacement strategy. I’ve worked with Oxford for decades, and I’ll be contacting them. The funny thing is, the people I’m most likely to be speaking with — editors, contract dept, everyone under the C-suite— are the most likely to be on the AI chopping block themselves.
So far as I know, publishers were using templates for most fiction and nonfiction books by the 1990s. That means maybe five designs for the art directors to choose from for all books. I had a friend who was head of the design department at Simon & Schuster who told me this. Only the books they expected to sell well would get an original design or specialty books like art books, cookbooks, and some craft books, or what are called in the trade “coffee table books.” These last ones are various kinds of subject matter. Point is, they are decorative and meant to be displayed. So I’m not sure how much of a decline in quality AI would bring to this job. What it would do is take paying jobs away from people. As I also recall, OUP was known for underpaying its employees. I guess they thought people were supposed to be so thrilled about working there they didn’t require a living wage.
Good lord, that quote about insistence on human hands withering after seeing what AI can do…what a nightmare we live in.