There are vigorous discussions on (what else) the Interwebs
regarding the replacement of creative wordsmiths (what we aspire to be) with artificial
intelligence.
Someday, soon, even yesterday, we will be obsolete, the
writers and poets say, trembling. Look at the amazing results AI had spawned so
far: can you tell which was written by an individual human and which was
spawned from the bank of many human contributors in the past by artificial Intelligence
algorithms?
For the most mundane texts, it’s not easy to discern. AI is
(still? maybe always?) not quite up to the marvels of human creativity when it
comes to the upper ends of the never-before imagined.
The other day, I resorted to using Chat GPT* for a task many
writers dread: finding comparable titles to the one we are submitting for
agents/editors’ consideration. This new requirement in standard submission
forms had left many of us even more despondent than writing synopses. Synopses already
felt like a cruel denigration of long and layered works.
This request for comparables, “Comps” for short, never feels right. After
all, we like to think of our work as unique, one of a kind, none other quite like it. 😏
Adding injury to insult, the requirement is supposed to be for
2-3 recent tiles, published less than three years before by major publishers. Say what? How many novels are we expected to read while crafting our own?
And this brings me to Chat GPT*. This
article here is an almost perfect use of this tool. Of course, once it brought
titles to my specified search, I realized I needed to refine it. But then, the
comps were not only appropriate but led me to read a couple of the titles
because they were too wonderful sounding not to. This tool turns out to be an
effective marketer to boot.
©Josh Gosfield
When Chat GPT* replaces the older search models, it is akin
to a better factory machine. These machines can never make a handmade object,
but they sure save on the more tedious tasks that human labor will gladly give
up.
It still requires a final inspection by a real live human.
*Bing's chat feature will do this adequately also and is in some ways more up to date. It doesn't require a sign-in or charge. Google's Bard, which I haven't checked yet, is rated lower by most, but it aspires to eventually match Bing's chat.
I didn't even think of it! It can be a useful tool. I often use Amazon's also boughts for comps and the look inside feature is really helpful.
ReplyDeleteHi Mirka! Side point to AI: When I worked at a publishing company, finding recent comps for potentially accepted manuscripts was part of my job. I was only required to read the reviews and summaries of the comps (looks like using Chat GPT will be even more helpful), and to only look at the comps that sold at least 10k copies in a year. As a writer, it does feel like a kick in the pants to be required to do this leg work: We are writers, not book marketers! As a freelance editor, I advise the writers to research comps from the start. Is there too much competition for your subject? Not enough? Either way, what will make your book different from those already out there? Having that knowledge from the start can help writers to get their manuscripts read and (cross fingers) published. I enjoy your blog! ~~Susan
ReplyDeleteSo good to "see" you here, Susan. I remember your taking one of my PB manuscripts to acquisition. Alas, it didn't make it all the way, but your reading my posts is the present's present :)
ReplyDeleteArtificial intelligence is exactly that––artificial. A true poet/wordsmith can never be replaced. Artifice didn't write, and will never write anything comparable to "But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,/ And loved the sorrows of your changing face."
ReplyDeleteLove,
Janie
I think human creativity is the best. It's good for our psyche and overall well-being. Artificial intelligence should not take that away.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you've found a good way to locate comps. I always hate that part of making a submission.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this very useful information, Mirka!
ReplyDelete