Indeed!

Aside from the AI, the worry is that they'll switch to an Adobe style licensing model.

Yes, if that's an option. I guess we'll find out in a month.

But yes, I wasn't aware of the sexual allegations. Disappointing, if true. And his views on religion/spirituality were simply "I just don't get it - and anyway it's wrong". I can respect thoughtful atheism, but that's just poor from a philosopher.

His writing on consciousness actually saved my interest in philsophy, and was an antidote to all the Dennett followers who thought they were clever by assuming it was an illusion! Good stuff on social reality, too.

Is it OK for the AI to provide this level of editing? How much is too much? If this is what a human editor does anyway, then what's the problem? I'm playing devil's advocate a little here, as I think there are other reasons not to use AI for editing.

What do you think?

#books #writing #AI #reading

Human editors might say things like, "Too much infodump", "Use active rather than passive voice", or even rephrase sentences or paragraphs to give an idea of how it might read better (with the understanding that the author then does the legwork for the rest of the MS).

#books #writing #AI #reading

This is quite reassuring, if expected - how much of an echo chamber are these platforms? But it's interesting to see how many people thought AI editing was OK. But how do you define "editing"? Picking up small grammatical errors, or complete rerphasing?

#books #writing #AI #reading