[dead]
I will read the substack later as I am interested in this, but the feeling I get when I walk into a bookshop today with all the 'read me! read me!' marketing that inevitably gets pushed for whatever trendy book of the day is in whatever number 1 bestseller list or Costa Prize, along with the realisation that in 10 lifetimes I'd probably not read the books in this shop i am stood in, that this is no different to what some people think AI will do to literature.
It may make some authors not bother (or some people not bothering to become authors) but I already am overwhelmed with what I can/must/should/might read and have to deal with it now, so AI killing literature I don't think will happen.
If it makes less authors turn out the junk that fills much of the shelves I have to peruse at the moment then all the better, but I don't think I will be seeing books on shelves predominantly by AI authors.
To digress slightly, reading physical media vs online/digital does help focus one's mind in terms of taking the effort to choose what to read than the easy-grazing that can happen online. I saw a similar comment the other day to this in reference to someone getting a weekly physical paper as a good way to keep up with 'news' without being overwhelmed by online news and all the dross that brings.
That sounds a lot like so many of the "this technology will never replace X", like, for example, digital cameras.
The technology frequently does.
AI authors means to replace actual writers, and that's quite different.
as with the photoshop example elsewhere, it may be that more writers will use AI tools to help them, which, if done with care, may be good, that's quite different from letting an AI do all the writing. while clarkesworld currently rejects any AI involvement, someone using an AI to explore ideas or prepare an outline may be harder to detect and eventually something like that may be published, but i hope they will be successful in eliminating any AI only submissions.