I've been making a living as a writer for 45 years. I may be the last of the generation of non famous writers to make a living churning out words.
I have been paid up to $6 a word to write magazine articles. But rates and opportunities have been on the decline since the Internet began killing off print publications.
The reality is "fun" writing - like essays and fiction - has always been a tough way to make a buck. There isn't a large paying market for type of stuff most people want to write on substack.
I still make a six figure income but it's largely for stuff like white papers ang ghost writing - that's where the money is. I still publish profiles and essays but I can't make a living with those as I did 29 years ago because the markets have dried up.
I think there will be great opportunities for people who are clever about developing an audience and monetizing their work. But I doubt it will be from patrons who are sponsoring art. More likely it will be companies who want to leverage the creators audience for marketing purposes.
“because these words must dance, not be suffocated by efficiency.” So well put, and I know exactly what you mean. I have worked in content/communications/journalism for almost 15 years, and I know what works. But I won’t. Not here. It feels like standing up for myself.
I think about, and am living so many questions about, this topic so much. It dominates so many of my professional conversations. And I, and an entire team of writers that I work with, have had meetings about how to incorporate AI into our process. And I’ll admit, I now use it in my paid work with the blessing and encouragement of the powers that be. (Which also brings up major ethical questions around billing for time.)
And I still don’t know where I land on it—for now, I’m content to remain 🤷♀️ about it while reading works like this that help me figure it out.
But what I do want to add, though, is how much the entire reality of the creator economy, the attention economy, the gig economy , AI art and writing, etc etc … just how much it all HURTS. I have kids, and I write for a living, and I’m now thinking often about getting trained up in a completely different field and switching professions entirely. Jumping a sinking ship. And honestly, it taints my love of writing, and I think that’s the worst part.
Also, I can’t imagine what AI would do to your voice, and I’m so glad to have access to the organic version of your work. Your voice is what allows your brilliant insights to shine, and the world is better for it.
I feel the same tension. And, as you point out, on the professional side there is a lot of, let's say encouragement, to use these tools. That, for me, points toward something insidious. I'm sure that if you give an already creative person these tools, they'll creatively experiment with it. But that's not the most common use of generative AI. No, it's all about efficiency and productivity (and those gains are probably a mirage: https://www.forbes.com/sites/torconstantino/2024/09/12/77-of-surveyed-employees-say-ai-tools-make-them-less-productive/). Creativity doesn't even factor in. It's about generating placeholders that are 'passable' enough to function as just more content. Whatever creative potential these tools have is quashed by the pressure to produce, which really drives home the fact that genAI, at the moment, is (mostly) an extension of corporate capitalism in both its use and development. It does hurt. (But I genuinely hope you keep writing in whatever way works best for you whether that's professional or not.)
That article plus your point about already creative people tells an interesting story that I hadn’t thought of. I’ve seen these tools used extremely well, and I’ve been in collaborative working sessions where the AI assistance actually made the whole thing so much more fun. I’ve also used it as a conversational companion to help me sort through my thoughts and feelings about something, and I’ve found it incredibly helpful and almost kind. BUT, all of the positive experiences I’ve had with AI were born of creativity—not the other way around. Our inputs were the creative part. And usually, I hardly use anything it produces, and the value comes in the enhancement of the creative process.
Makes me wonder if this explains some of the idealism and enthusiasm of some of the people developing it, who most certainly are really creative and having a blast. Not all—I do see how some people in power have been mustache twistingly, deliberately malevolent—but some.
I have questions. (but please don't feel an obligation to answer here. No pressure.)
- The AI made it fun. In a fun party trick way or a clever and insightful way? Or better: was *using* the AI fun, or was the AI fun?
- Conversational companion. I'd be worried about getting stuck in a platitude loop. The AI isn't listening or engaging. It's predicting the next (set of) token(s). I'd have a hard time escaping the notion that there's no one listening. Or am I wrong here?
- In my more cynical moods, I'd say that the developers enthusiasm might be more profit-driven than yay, creativity-driven. What they are seeking to automate is (often, but perhaps not always?) part of the creative process, aka doing the writing (designing, etc.). Am I too cynical?
Happy to answer, and think the answer to your first two questions are in the same vein. Both answers have more to do with the process of cueing AI and less with the outputs. In one “fun” scenario, there were three of us brainstorming ideas for how to articulate the values of a company we’re starting. Two of us had two different AI tools in front of us, and we would actually narrate the questions we’d input into the tools to each other. “What is a metaphor for something that is substantial and has authority, but not in a stuffy way?” Or something like that. Usually, what we got back would do one of two things—move us closer to what we were getting at, or give us something so bad that it exposed an error in either our thinking or our inputs. So in a way, it functioned kind of as another member in the brainstorming session adding another perspective. I think we only used a single word it came up with, but the echoing it provided did help us hone our own thinking, almost like a beefed up thesaurus or Google search.
It’s the same with the emotional processing example. I would type in something that I was trying to say in sort of a ramble, then ask if it could help me articulate it. It would then be like “is this what you’re trying to say?” and kick something back. The answer was usually “no” or “kind of,” and I’d clarify the things in my input that obviously got lost. I did this as a journaling activity, and it was super helpful. And I did feel less guarded because it wasn’t a human being echoing back to me what I said.
But, I also consider myself pretty good at wrestling with complex material and seeing especially the logical fallacies that may be at play underneath. Thus, I think I was able to discern what I got back pretty well. That said, it’s very possible that I am not actually as good at that as I think and falling into a Dunning-Kruger kind of trap. Which does seem like it could be dangerous in this kind of a scenario.
I don’t think you’re too cynical, but I have also worked alongside people in tech and biotech that genuinely think that what they’re doing will change the world. I would say that more of them have been that way than not. But then, I also haven’t been intimate enough with them to have access to their less-guarded thoughts about it, so I cannot say. What I do know is that the conversation and questions about this seemingly runaway tech are critical, and it’ll take many different minds to tease it out, together. So I’m listening, and also gaining some of my own direct experience with it in an attempt to stay grounded in how I think about it. I appreciate you engaging. 😊
I think "almost like a beefed up thesaurus or Google search" is key. If I read you correctly, it's more a tool of help you iterate and perhaps finetune, rather than 'generate'.
From my side, I've also seen those early-stage startups driven by idealism, but there seems to be something about scaling up that (understandably given shareholder appeasement) slowly pushes that to the background in many cases. Cynical, I know. ;)
I'll check out RemAIning Human.
Thanks, Danielle, you've given me stuff to think about.
Creators are facing an existential threat. The modern AI "training" process is high-tech theft, gobbling up words and images without consent or compensation:
I was just thinking this morning how much the creator economy reminds me of an online version of busking. You’re an exception—you bring value—but much of the stuff I encounter is basically someone taking and asking for spare change.
With great compassion for your struggle, I am thinking of the woodcut of Robert Greene in his winding sheet, writing about the Upstart Crow not only stealing his thunder, but making all the money, too, while Green starves. The British comedy named after Green’s furious insult - which I enjoyed immensely - elevated the historical Green to Master of Revels and made him a villain, giving him sufficient status to act as a credible antagonist, as he was not historically. Setting that fiction aside, we must grieve for Green as a representative of all artists who labor in their vineyards insufficiently compensated.
I also think of Dr. Johnson, fuming hat in hand, in Lord Chesterfield’s waiting room.
I am not just saying it has always been hard, though it has. When I abandoned my ambition to make my way as an artist in my thirties the ambition never abandoned me. Every spare moment was taken up with efforts that paid not a groatsworth.
Now I am an old man, sitting on a mountain of music and literature that will die with me. I hope you can break through and do better than I did. Yet I have no regrets. There is a kind of reward in the effort itself that, though it does not pay the rent, pays the soul.
There will always be this tension between the creative acts and the demands of daily life. We all navigate them as best we can. (And now I have to go check out that British comedy!)
"There is a kind of reward in the effort itself that, though it does not pay the rent, pays the soul." That is a beautiful thought!
I've been making a living as a writer for 45 years. I may be the last of the generation of non famous writers to make a living churning out words.
I have been paid up to $6 a word to write magazine articles. But rates and opportunities have been on the decline since the Internet began killing off print publications.
The reality is "fun" writing - like essays and fiction - has always been a tough way to make a buck. There isn't a large paying market for type of stuff most people want to write on substack.
I still make a six figure income but it's largely for stuff like white papers ang ghost writing - that's where the money is. I still publish profiles and essays but I can't make a living with those as I did 29 years ago because the markets have dried up.
I think there will be great opportunities for people who are clever about developing an audience and monetizing their work. But I doubt it will be from patrons who are sponsoring art. More likely it will be companies who want to leverage the creators audience for marketing purposes.
I'm nodding along with everything in this comment, Joe. I think you're spot on.
Good writing Gunnar, and good research.
Thanks, Joshua!
“because these words must dance, not be suffocated by efficiency.” So well put, and I know exactly what you mean. I have worked in content/communications/journalism for almost 15 years, and I know what works. But I won’t. Not here. It feels like standing up for myself.
I think about, and am living so many questions about, this topic so much. It dominates so many of my professional conversations. And I, and an entire team of writers that I work with, have had meetings about how to incorporate AI into our process. And I’ll admit, I now use it in my paid work with the blessing and encouragement of the powers that be. (Which also brings up major ethical questions around billing for time.)
And I still don’t know where I land on it—for now, I’m content to remain 🤷♀️ about it while reading works like this that help me figure it out.
But what I do want to add, though, is how much the entire reality of the creator economy, the attention economy, the gig economy , AI art and writing, etc etc … just how much it all HURTS. I have kids, and I write for a living, and I’m now thinking often about getting trained up in a completely different field and switching professions entirely. Jumping a sinking ship. And honestly, it taints my love of writing, and I think that’s the worst part.
Also, I can’t imagine what AI would do to your voice, and I’m so glad to have access to the organic version of your work. Your voice is what allows your brilliant insights to shine, and the world is better for it.
That last paragraph! Thanks so much, Danielle!
I feel the same tension. And, as you point out, on the professional side there is a lot of, let's say encouragement, to use these tools. That, for me, points toward something insidious. I'm sure that if you give an already creative person these tools, they'll creatively experiment with it. But that's not the most common use of generative AI. No, it's all about efficiency and productivity (and those gains are probably a mirage: https://www.forbes.com/sites/torconstantino/2024/09/12/77-of-surveyed-employees-say-ai-tools-make-them-less-productive/). Creativity doesn't even factor in. It's about generating placeholders that are 'passable' enough to function as just more content. Whatever creative potential these tools have is quashed by the pressure to produce, which really drives home the fact that genAI, at the moment, is (mostly) an extension of corporate capitalism in both its use and development. It does hurt. (But I genuinely hope you keep writing in whatever way works best for you whether that's professional or not.)
That article plus your point about already creative people tells an interesting story that I hadn’t thought of. I’ve seen these tools used extremely well, and I’ve been in collaborative working sessions where the AI assistance actually made the whole thing so much more fun. I’ve also used it as a conversational companion to help me sort through my thoughts and feelings about something, and I’ve found it incredibly helpful and almost kind. BUT, all of the positive experiences I’ve had with AI were born of creativity—not the other way around. Our inputs were the creative part. And usually, I hardly use anything it produces, and the value comes in the enhancement of the creative process.
Makes me wonder if this explains some of the idealism and enthusiasm of some of the people developing it, who most certainly are really creative and having a blast. Not all—I do see how some people in power have been mustache twistingly, deliberately malevolent—but some.
I have questions. (but please don't feel an obligation to answer here. No pressure.)
- The AI made it fun. In a fun party trick way or a clever and insightful way? Or better: was *using* the AI fun, or was the AI fun?
- Conversational companion. I'd be worried about getting stuck in a platitude loop. The AI isn't listening or engaging. It's predicting the next (set of) token(s). I'd have a hard time escaping the notion that there's no one listening. Or am I wrong here?
- In my more cynical moods, I'd say that the developers enthusiasm might be more profit-driven than yay, creativity-driven. What they are seeking to automate is (often, but perhaps not always?) part of the creative process, aka doing the writing (designing, etc.). Am I too cynical?
Happy to answer, and think the answer to your first two questions are in the same vein. Both answers have more to do with the process of cueing AI and less with the outputs. In one “fun” scenario, there were three of us brainstorming ideas for how to articulate the values of a company we’re starting. Two of us had two different AI tools in front of us, and we would actually narrate the questions we’d input into the tools to each other. “What is a metaphor for something that is substantial and has authority, but not in a stuffy way?” Or something like that. Usually, what we got back would do one of two things—move us closer to what we were getting at, or give us something so bad that it exposed an error in either our thinking or our inputs. So in a way, it functioned kind of as another member in the brainstorming session adding another perspective. I think we only used a single word it came up with, but the echoing it provided did help us hone our own thinking, almost like a beefed up thesaurus or Google search.
It’s the same with the emotional processing example. I would type in something that I was trying to say in sort of a ramble, then ask if it could help me articulate it. It would then be like “is this what you’re trying to say?” and kick something back. The answer was usually “no” or “kind of,” and I’d clarify the things in my input that obviously got lost. I did this as a journaling activity, and it was super helpful. And I did feel less guarded because it wasn’t a human being echoing back to me what I said.
But, I also consider myself pretty good at wrestling with complex material and seeing especially the logical fallacies that may be at play underneath. Thus, I think I was able to discern what I got back pretty well. That said, it’s very possible that I am not actually as good at that as I think and falling into a Dunning-Kruger kind of trap. Which does seem like it could be dangerous in this kind of a scenario.
I don’t think you’re too cynical, but I have also worked alongside people in tech and biotech that genuinely think that what they’re doing will change the world. I would say that more of them have been that way than not. But then, I also haven’t been intimate enough with them to have access to their less-guarded thoughts about it, so I cannot say. What I do know is that the conversation and questions about this seemingly runaway tech are critical, and it’ll take many different minds to tease it out, together. So I’m listening, and also gaining some of my own direct experience with it in an attempt to stay grounded in how I think about it. I appreciate you engaging. 😊
I think "almost like a beefed up thesaurus or Google search" is key. If I read you correctly, it's more a tool of help you iterate and perhaps finetune, rather than 'generate'.
From my side, I've also seen those early-stage startups driven by idealism, but there seems to be something about scaling up that (understandably given shareholder appeasement) slowly pushes that to the background in many cases. Cynical, I know. ;)
I'll check out RemAIning Human.
Thanks, Danielle, you've given me stuff to think about.
PS I’ve really enjoyed Cecilia Callas’ RemAIning Human Substack on this topic.
Good writing Gunnar. 👏
Creators are facing an existential threat. The modern AI "training" process is high-tech theft, gobbling up words and images without consent or compensation:
https://medium.com/@bairdbrightman/stop-thief-chatgpt-midjourney-ai-etc-6be4a058e098
People love them some "free" stuff even if that model picks their own pocket (falling wages) at the same time. The house always wins.
Thanks, Baird.
That’s the tension, isn’t it? Everyone wants free stuff, but that free stuff doesn’t really come for free.
I was just thinking this morning how much the creator economy reminds me of an online version of busking. You’re an exception—you bring value—but much of the stuff I encounter is basically someone taking and asking for spare change.
Thanks, Joe - I try.
Busking is a great analogy!
With great compassion for your struggle, I am thinking of the woodcut of Robert Greene in his winding sheet, writing about the Upstart Crow not only stealing his thunder, but making all the money, too, while Green starves. The British comedy named after Green’s furious insult - which I enjoyed immensely - elevated the historical Green to Master of Revels and made him a villain, giving him sufficient status to act as a credible antagonist, as he was not historically. Setting that fiction aside, we must grieve for Green as a representative of all artists who labor in their vineyards insufficiently compensated.
I also think of Dr. Johnson, fuming hat in hand, in Lord Chesterfield’s waiting room.
I am not just saying it has always been hard, though it has. When I abandoned my ambition to make my way as an artist in my thirties the ambition never abandoned me. Every spare moment was taken up with efforts that paid not a groatsworth.
Now I am an old man, sitting on a mountain of music and literature that will die with me. I hope you can break through and do better than I did. Yet I have no regrets. There is a kind of reward in the effort itself that, though it does not pay the rent, pays the soul.
Thanks, David.
There will always be this tension between the creative acts and the demands of daily life. We all navigate them as best we can. (And now I have to go check out that British comedy!)
"There is a kind of reward in the effort itself that, though it does not pay the rent, pays the soul." That is a beautiful thought!