This quote from Georgina Cromarty’s post about writing and artificial intelligence practically blew my mind.
“Some writers will see AI manuscript evaluations as a blessing since it takes the subjective human out the loop.
…And some may see it as a threat.”
Yes, I’ve worked in the IT field for 20+ years. Yes, I understand what the ones and zeros are all about, and the inner workings of software and hardware. Yes, I know technology brings about modern convenience, and can spout an answer to the hardest equations with speed and ease. But with all of that, do I trust it wholly? No! Here’s why.
Mankind believes computers are smart. The reality is that technology is only as great as the humans that make it. And of course we know that humans are bound to mistakes. So, technology is too. Nothing is perfect.
So when I think about artificial intelligence playing a role in evaluating manuscripts, a smile crosses my face because it means the process of submitting and getting a response will be shortened. But then my smile fades, and my head cocks to one side like a questioning puppy. What algorithm is used to decide what’s publish-worthy and what’s not? How often is the artificial intelligence maintained and updated for optimal performance?
I get it from a productivity perspective. There’s a lot of reading and publishers want to watch their bottom line. Technology can help, but in the end will it really? When people read, they have the ability to experience feeling and emotion. Can technology do that? Of course not. It can only do what it is told (and even then it’s not the real thing). So an award-winning manuscript may never see the light of day because it didn’t meet the criteria of a computer. Not sure I like that. What are your thoughts?
Check out the rest of Georgina Cromarty’s post on other interesting takes on artificial intelligence and it’s place in various industries.
Melanie V. Logan 