> "Two business school professors, curious about A.I. books and whether anyone actually likes them, gathered data about 10 million books published on Amazon over the last five years. They found that the number of e-books published per month had tripled since the release of ChatGPT, to more than 300,000 at the end of last year, from around 100,000 in 2022. (Amazon said that its internal metrics did not show that level of growth, but would not share its figures.). Because romance sells, the professors thought it would be the genre most susceptible to A.I. intervention, but instead it was nonfiction — a term that should probably be used loosely in this context. While A.I.-assisted books received lower customer ratings than human-made ones, they deemed A.I.’s entry into the market a positive development, because the books were selling, if modestly. As economists, they told me, they’re less concerned with literary quality or customer satisfaction than revenue growth and market expansion."

One of the writers, Bill Johns, age 70, a retired cyber security consultant:

> "Mr. Johns now has 445 books for sale on Amazon. He orders a paperback copy of each one and keeps them on four rotating white bookshelves that are crowded awkwardly next to a couch in his living room. They all feature a photo of him in a serious dark suit — which is A.I. generated. “It was either that or put on a suit and take selfies,” he said."

If sloppy digital pollution is the state of things to come, I fear for our species.

Couldn't find a discussion yet on Wikipedia about how slop books with ISBNs and publishers are more authoritative sources than primary sources by the letter of its rules, but I expect there'll be one by the time I finish popping a bag of popcorn

I stumbled across this recently - back in the 70s publishing houses were paying people to churn out book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nlbfZGFKuI

> Donald Rowland, a Suffolk author of nearly 200 books - written under more than 30 pseudonyms - has made a living out of his romantic fiction. Donald churns out more novels than anybody else in the county. He specialises in old-fashioned romance, his heroes and heroines are morally beyond reproach, there is no sex in his novels. The reason for his prolific output is simple - Donald is paid just fifty pounds per book.

Anything written by AI should, at the very least, be filed under fiction.

Honest question, but since when were biographies ever _authorized_? I would assume you would simply inform the subject out of politeness if at all.

Given that everything in the book is public information, it's hard to argue that any of this is strictly _illegal_, given the First Amendment. But it's definitely distasteful to write a book about a living individual without their consent (even though this does happen all the time; technically Wikipedia does this too).

Though that does raise an interesting point: what's the difference between writing a book about someone and asking ChatGPT "Tell me the biography of X"? It's the historical meaning and prestige of saying "I wrote a book", even though with Amazon, anyone can write a book and self-publish it.

> Eamon Duede, a philosopher of science at Purdue University and one of the authors of a paper called “Why Slop Matters,” said A.I. brought joy to people who wanted to create something that very few other people would find interesting — like images of their friends in historical scenes.

> “People get an enormous amount of enjoyment and satisfaction out of creating stuff if it’s low effort,” he said. People who want to be creative, but might not be very good at it, can turn to A.I. and find “a bunch of barriers removed.”

I think there needs to be a different frame with which to analyze this scenario. Yes, it's distasteful to sell a book about a living person without their consent. But who are we to deny people the enjoyment of entertaining themselves by researching, brainstorming, and publishing a document/report/book, whatever you want to call it?

I'm glad the author mentioned it in the article, but it's definitely a different world now.

I'd love it if marketplaces just banned AI books entirely. I see zero value in it. If I want AI text I can just go to AI it and it'll print out a books worth of text anyway; if I'm searching for a book I want something written by a human. I have zero interest in giving money to grifters and spammers.

I expect I'll get a lot of hate for this, and potentially deservedly so, but I've been doing something similar since late last year when Opus came out.

> Because romance sells, the professors thought it would be the genre most susceptible to A.I. intervention, but instead it was nonfiction...

I've been working mostly in erotica but have shifted to some nonfiction series lately.

I stopped for a while, but Fable and GPT 5.6 Sol have reinvigorated me.

I use Claude Code and other CLIs to manage the process, create first drafts, covers, research, etc. I heavily edit most things before I publish it.

The first question is probably one of profitability. So far I have made a little over $40, compared to probably $800 in AI subscription fees. So from that point of view it's been an absolute disaster.

If anyone is curious, I'd be happy to talk about any of it.

What if we all collectively decided to AI-slop our own auto-biographies here?

It won't stop the Slop-pocalypse, but at least, then, we're funneling some of that money back to ourselves.

If a person's going to buy vibe-coded slop about me, at least let it be my vibe-coded slop.