2) The volume of submissions has grown massively because spammers are using LLMs to generate spam submissions in the hope of getting paid.
3) The current generation of LLMs are not particularly good at generating quality literature on their own, so this massive deluge of submissions is mostly garbage.
On other hand GPT might technically be good enough. But there isn't any actual substance. The reason why we read literature. This is varying bar, but still it does exist.
We currently don't have any machine-level filter that would identify whether or not a piece of prose is actually a coherent work of narrative fiction or not. And annoyingly, if we did, AFAIK we'd also have everything we needed to train an AI (specifically, a GAN) to generate narrative fiction. So we're going to be dealing with this right up until the point where it doesn't matter any more, rather than being able to do any kind of quick hack to banish it "early."
https://thegradient.pub/an-introduction-to-ai-story-generati...
Unfortunately those are a) virtually unknown outside academic circles and b) about to die a death. The latter, the death, they're about to die it because their space is now being taken over by a much more prolific technology that generates low-grade bullshit cheaply.
Life, innit. It goes in circles.
If all the money is in generative models that give "good looking" results, who is going to spend money investing in the techniques that don't produce as "good looking" results right now but who have a potential beyond recombining it's training data?
Sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from people who don't understand the core issue here. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever...
If the stories were great, or even if .001% were great, then I think the magazine would be happy as they’d be able to put out more great stories.
There’s too many things to list that you “can” do that society collectively believes you shouldn’t because the negatives outweigh the positives.
But also I expect AI-written novels to be pretty crap, so I'd prefer humans keep doing it.
I can’t see why. It could very well, on its own, use other genre’s narrative structures, stories or styles that are uncommon or inexistant in SF.
It could also be used by a human writer to flesh out the story and concepts the writer has created. There are a few authors I find brilliant but whose writing and characters were sorely lacking.
It’s really more about what you do with it than wether or not you use it. I mean, computers have enabled people to simply copy-paste stuff and not produce anything meaningful. Some do just that. Others have thrived.
"...a last ironic thought drifted through Hendricks’ mind...They were already beginning to design weapons to use against each other."