/lit/ - Literature

That’s according to a recently released survey by the Society of Authors, which heard from over 800 of their members about how they’re feeling about emergent technologies and their impact on their creative work.

The Society, a UK-based trade organization that has been advising and campaigning for writers, illustrators, and literary translators for over a century, found that its members are curious but extremely wary of new generative technology.

This isn’t a universally skeptical crowd: 22% of respondents say they have used generative programs in their work, and 31% have used them for brainstorming. This number was lower than I might have guessed. Artists have always embraced the experimental possibility of new materials and tools, and that so few are using AI underscores the deep and widespread ethical and reputational concerns around this tech. In fact, the survey found that “even those respondents who were more optimistic…reiterated that ethical concerns are a primary reason to avoid the use of generative AI systems at this stage.”

There’s also the crucial factor that this tech hasn’t shown an ability to make art that is good or interesting, and has only found a fanbase amongst the worst guys you’ve ever seen.

The survey also found that AI is already cutting into people’s work. A quarter of illustrators (26%) and over a third of translators (36%) say they’ve lost work due to generative AI, and a higher percentage—37% of illustrators and 43% of translators—say the income for their work has decreased because of generative tech. It seems like this programming is already working as intended.

https://lithub.com/more-than-a-third-of-translators-think-theyve-already-lost-work-to-ai/