内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/book-publishers-are-quietly-using-more-ai-staff-are-revolting/

内容总结：

美五大出版商悄然拥抱AI工具，引发内部员工不满与行业争议

今年以来，美国各大出版商在明面上似乎正在对生成式AI发起反击——从起诉谷歌侵犯版权，到取消涉嫌使用大语言模型的作者出书计划。然而，据对二十余名出版业员工的匿名采访，美国五大出版巨头中至少有三家——哈珀柯林斯、西蒙与舒斯特以及阿歇特——已在未公开披露、也未征得作者同意的情况下，悄然将AI工具引入出版流程。

据员工透露，出版商正在使用Claude、ChatGPT等大语言模型撰写给文学经纪人的邮件、宣传文案、封底文字、封面设计和营销材料，且往往由高管授意。与此同时，多名编辑表示，被公开曝光的作者使用AI写作的案例只是冰山一角。一位编辑称：“每家出版社都有某位德高望重者因公然使用AI而被取消出书的故事”，只是从未见诸报端。

在哈珀柯林斯，高层数月前从Anthropic购买了Claude许可证，“但很快意识到不知道该如何落地”。随后数十名员工被“自愿征召”为“AI先锋”，每月参加头脑风暴会议探索应用场景。今年春季，当有员工对AI的法律、伦理和环境影响表达担忧时，会议负责人将他们的顾虑斥为“做生意的代价”。此后，公司内部门户网站的AI板块新增说明，称AI“虽然确实有环境影响，但在大多数个人数字碳足迹中只占很小一部分”。有员工对此感到愤怒：“我们多年来提出合理的加薪诉求，他们却把钱花在大多数人并不真正想要的软件上。”据悉，哈珀柯林斯还购买了ChatGPT和Jasper的许可证。至少有一个部门已“全面拥抱”AI，包括用AI生成营销视频。

然而，最常见的使用场景之一是生成宣传文案。一位五大出版商的宣传人员表示，用AI生成宣传文案“目光短浅”，“宣传人员有义务真诚地与读者和媒体同行沟通，他们对AI生成的推销邮件容忍度必然很低。”独立出版社Hub City Press的出版人梅格·里德则坦言，对于五大出版商而言，AI撰写营销文案“感觉几乎是不可避免的”。

与此同时，今年早些时候，文学经纪人开始怀疑某些五大出版社的编辑使用AI撰写退稿信。一位经纪人称：“同事们比较了同一编辑对不同书稿的邮件，都有典型的AI写作特征。”西蒙与舒斯特、哈珀柯林斯和阿歇特的员工证实，经纪人的怀疑是正确的。阿歇特发言人表示，公司“支持在运营目的上使用AI工具”，但“不支持AI的创造性使用，包括与作者和合作伙伴沟通”。西蒙与舒斯特全球首席营销和传播官表示，员工可使用有限的企业级AI工具，但并非强制，且禁止使用未经审核批准的AI工具。哈珀柯林斯未回应置评请求。

数月前，西蒙与舒斯特员工参加了OpenAI代表的研讨会。一位参会者称，主讲人“完全不了解我们的工作”，但建议用ChatGPT撰写给文学经纪人的邮件。据悉，这一做法在哈珀柯林斯和阿歇特的编辑中也日益普遍。2024年5月，西蒙与舒斯特举办AI最佳用例竞赛，一等奖一万美元。此后，由于员工在全员大会上不断抱怨，公司“有所收敛”。多位员工称，AI生成的素材也开始出现在封面设计中。

所有受访经纪人都担心出版商会将作者手稿粘贴到LLM中生成退稿信和宣传文案。一位经纪人表示已在合同中加入AI条款，禁止将材料输入LLM。哈珀柯林斯有消息称，多名编辑曾询问能否将完整手稿粘贴到开放式LLM中，被法务团队告知不可。阿歇特员工则担忧，在新任首席信息官卡尔·希克森的领导下，公司AI政策可能“演变”，希克森此前在沙特国有背景的SRMG担任首席技术官，该公司已公开拥抱AI代理技术。

一些五大出版商员工表示，他们不情愿地尝试LLM，只是因为高管裁员后工作量翻了两三倍。“到处都是一线人员严重不足，”一位员工说，“大团队缩减到五六个人，我们却在做两三倍的书。难怪有人走捷径。我不怪他们，我怪公司把捷径硬塞给我们，说‘不做就落后’。”

就在过去几周，西蒙与舒斯特员工中传出消息，称公司在KKR的“明显催促下”正与Skan AI进行实验性试用。Skan AI官网称其“为领导者提供减少成本、优先自动化和满足董事会转型要求所需的证据基础”。员工随即发起公开信征集签名，向CEO格雷格·格里利表达“强烈反对”，要求承诺不将Skan AI等类似软件引入工作流程。员工不仅担忧软件的监控能力，还担心其“自动化发现”工具被用于影子跟踪和替代员工。10月6日，该公开信被《纽约》杂志报道，同日格里利向员工发备忘录，确认公司一直在探索Skan AI的Blueprint产品，但“尚未决定使用”。然而，AI检测平台Pangram显示，格里利的备忘录至少部分由AI撰写。

约两年前，哈珀柯林斯CEO布赖恩·默里在瑞银会议上表示，AI对出版商而言“机遇大于风险”。此后，多名编辑称在法兰克福和伦敦书展上看到带有AI使用披露的LLM翻译手稿。今年8月，Europa Editions执行出版人迈克尔·雷诺兹在巴尔的摩的出版会议上表示对AI翻译的前景感到兴奋，与会者称他“似乎对批评感到困惑”。

《大说：集团化如何改变出版业和美国文学》作者丹·辛金表示：“五大出版巨头的高管层与其他美国大公司的高管层共同点更多，而与为他们工作的编辑、宣传和翻译人员共同点更少。他们一直在寻找利润最大化的方式，现在正在试探在引发反抗之前能做到什么程度。”

多数受访业内人士只希望出版商至少能提供明确的AI使用指南和披露，以缓解当前的混乱。“我们需要出版商明确说明使用什么、何时使用，”Triangle House Literary的经纪人艾玛·德里斯说。一位哈珀柯林斯在职员工则表示，公司没有给出任何指导，“因为我觉得他们知道这会引发轩然大波。”德里斯补充道：“除非这些工具被禁用——坦白说那才是我的偏好——否则所有人都应该加强沟通。”

中文翻译：

今年的新闻头条中，美国图书出版商似乎在反击生成式AI，从起诉谷歌侵犯版权，到取消涉嫌使用大语言模型的作者的书。但在幕后，美国五大出版商中至少有三家——哈珀柯林斯、西蒙与舒斯特和阿歇特——一直在悄悄将AI工具纳入出版流程，既未公开披露，也未征得作者同意。

根据对二十多名员工的采访——所有人均在匿名的条件下受访，以免危及自己的工作——出版商如今正在使用Claude和ChatGPT等大语言模型来给文学经纪人发邮件、撰写宣传文案和封底文字、设计封面艺术以及制作营销材料，而且往往是在高管的指示下进行的。与此同时，多名编辑人员表示，那些被广泛报道的作者被指控使用大语言模型协助写书的事件——如阿歇特的恐怖小说《害羞的女孩》或麦克米伦的犯罪惊悚小说《打电话给我，我会藏好尸体》——只是冰山一角。一位编辑说：“每一家子品牌都有这样的故事：某个非常受尊敬的人因为公然使用AI而被取消出书”，却从未见诸新闻。

据一位现任员工透露，哈珀柯林斯的高层领导几个月前从Anthropic购买了Claude的许可证，“但很快意识到他们不知道如何落地使用”。随后，数十名初级和高级员工被“自愿征召”成为“AI先锋”，任务是在每月与全公司员工进行的头脑风暴会议中发掘应用场景。据一位与会者称，今年春天，当一些哈珀柯林斯员工在其中一次头脑风暴会议上对AI的法律、伦理和环境影响表示担忧时，会议主持人将他们的顾虑斥为“做生意的代价”。不久之后，哈珀柯林斯在线员工门户网站的AI新版块中添加了一份声明，指出“虽然AI确实对环境有影响，但它在大多数个人数字碳足迹总量中只占很小一部分”。

一些哈珀柯林斯员工对这些头脑风暴会议感到不安。“简直是一记耳光，”一位员工说。“我们多年来一直在提出合理的商业理由，要求拿到体面的薪水，结果他们却把钱花在了我们大多数人并不真正想要的软件上。”（2023年，五大出版商和学乐在纽约市出版员工的平均初级薪资为47,583美元。）除了Claude之外，员工们说哈珀柯林斯还购买了ChatGPT和Jasper的许可证，后者是一个代理式平台，承诺“运行端到端营销工作流程”。

据一位员工称，哈珀柯林斯至少有一个部门自获得软件许可证以来对AI“全力投入”，包括AI生成的营销视频。但据哈珀柯林斯、西蒙与舒斯特和阿歇特的员工称，迄今为止大语言模型最常见的用途之一是生成宣传文案。读者在亚马逊、Goodreads以及封底等各处都能遇到宣传文案，它被用来向书商、记者、内容创作者和评论家推介图书。然而，“用AI生成宣传文案是短视的，”一位五大出版商的宣传人员告诉我。“宣传人员有义务真诚地与读者和媒体同行互动，我确信他们对AI生成的推介容忍度很低。”

另一方面，独立出版社Hub City Press的出版人梅格·里德表示，对于五大出版商来说，大语言模型撰写的营销和宣传文案不幸地“感觉相当不可避免”。“这可能是我们会看到更大转变的一个领域——企业出版商追求效率，而小型出版商坚持认为参与其中的人才是关键。”

与此同时，今年早些时候，文学经纪人开始怀疑某些五大出版商的编辑在使用AI撰写拒稿信。“同事们之间，我们比较了同一编辑对不同书发来的邮件，它们都有AI写作的典型特征，比如‘不是这个，而是那个’以及三段式排比，”一位经纪人说。西蒙与舒斯特、哈珀柯林斯和阿歇特的员工告诉《连线》杂志，他们认为经纪人的怀疑是正确的。阿歇特的一位发言人表示，公司“支持在运营目的上使用AI工具，当它们能帮助我们作者的书触达更多读者时”，但公司“不支持AI的创造性用途，包括与我们的作者和合作伙伴沟通”。

西蒙与舒斯特全球首席营销与传播官维布克·格鲁特延表示，“所有职能部门的员工都可以使用有限数量的企业级AI工具”，但使用它们并非强制性的。格鲁特延说，公司禁止使用任何“未经审查和批准”的AI工具，并且“目标始终是释放更多时间，让我们的员工能够代表作者并与作者一起，投入到更深入的专注和创造性工作中”。哈珀柯林斯未回应置评请求。

几个月前，西蒙与舒斯特的员工参加了与OpenAI代表的工作坊。“主持工作坊的人真的完全不知道我们是做什么的，”一位与会者说，但这家AI公司关于如何在图书行业使用ChatGPT的建议之一，实际上就是撰写给文学经纪人的邮件。员工们说，这种做法在哈珀柯林斯和阿歇特的编辑中也越来越普遍。

2024年5月，员工们说西蒙与舒斯特在员工中举办了一场比赛，征集AI的最佳应用场景，获胜者可得1万美元奖金，两名亚军各得5,000美元。此后，该公司“缩减了一些AI推进力度，因为员工在全员大会上不断抱怨”，一位员工说。据多名员工称，AI素材也开始出现在封面设计中，一些由西蒙与舒斯特发行的外国出版社在分享设计时公开承认使用了AI。

我交谈过的所有经纪人都表达了担忧：出版商可能会将作者手稿中的文本粘贴到大语言模型中，以生成拒稿信和宣传描述等内容。“我们在合同中加入了AI条款，写明‘这些材料不能被输入大语言模型处理’，”一位因担心职业影响而不愿透露姓名的经纪人说。“表面上，这是为了保护作者免受科技公司的侵害，但它同样适用于购买和出版这本书的公司。如果他们使用的不是闭环模型，他们可能正在将作者未发表的作品喂给大语言模型。”与大多数人在网上使用的大语言模型（谷歌Gemini、ChatGPT等）不同，闭环模型在单台电脑或网络上运行，该网络是“气隙隔离”的，因此无法与AI公司的云服务器共享数据。哈珀柯林斯的一位消息人士说，多名编辑曾询问经理是否可以将完整手稿粘贴到开环大语言模型中，公司法务团队告知他们不可以。

阿歇特的员工也在为该公司的AI政策在新任首席信息官卡尔·希克森的领导下“演变”做准备，因为希克森此前曾担任SRMG的首席技术官，而SRMG是一家沙特国家支持的公司，已公开拥抱代理式AI。

五大出版商的一些员工表示，他们只是不情愿地在尝试大语言模型，因为高管们通过裁员大幅削减了他们的团队，随后又将他们的工作量增加了两倍。“到处都是一线人员在苦苦支撑，”一位员工说。“大团队被缩减到只有五六个人，上下浮动，而我们要做的书却是以前的两三倍。难怪人们在走捷径。我不会因此评判他们。我评判的是公司，把捷径硬塞给我们，说‘要么这么做，要么我们就落后了。’”

就在过去几周，西蒙与舒斯特的员工中传开了一个消息：公司正在“在KKR的明显敦促下”对Skan AI进行实验性试用——KKR是2023年收购西蒙与舒斯特的投资公司。据Skan AI自己的网站介绍，它“为领导者提供所需的证据基础，以降低成本、优先推进自动化，并满足董事会级别的转型要求”。

作为回应，西蒙与舒斯特的员工开始在一封致CEO格雷格·格里利的公开信上征集签名，表达他们的“强烈反对”，并“寻求一项承诺：无论现在还是将来，都不将Skan AI或其他类似软件引入西蒙与舒斯特的工作流程”。除了该软件的监控能力外，许多员工还担心Skan AI的“自动化发现”工具会被用来暗中监视并取代他们。

这封公开信的消息于10月6日发表在《纽约》杂志的“图书八卦”通讯中。同一天，格里利向西蒙与舒斯特员工发送了一份备忘录，确认公司一直在探索Skan AI的Blueprint产品，但“尚未做出使用Blueprint或任何其他生产力监控或工作流程分析工具的决定”，并且在前一天有人向他提出担忧之前，他“没有看到与这一早期阶段探索相关的材料”。Pangram——不管好坏，它已成为首选的AI检测平台——显示格里利的备忘录中至少有一部分是AI写的。

大约两年前，在瑞银全球媒体与通信大会上，哈珀柯林斯CEO布莱恩·默里表示，AI对图书出版商来说“机遇大于风险”，他认为AI将在未来帮助哈珀柯林斯增加翻译图书和有声读物的出版数量。此后，多名编辑表示，他们在一年一度的法兰克福和伦敦书展上看到了带有AI使用披露的大语言模型翻译手稿——美国出版商在这些书展上从外国文学代理机构购买国际出版和翻译权。

八月，迈克尔·雷诺兹——Europa Editions的执行出版人，这家纽约独立出版社以出版埃莱娜·费兰特的“那不勒斯四部曲”而闻名——在巴尔的摩举行的“新声音新空间”大会上对满屋子的书商说，他对AI在翻译领域的可能性感到兴奋，并且据与会者称，“似乎对针对AI的批评感到困惑”。Europa Editions在文学圈已颇具争议，因为其书籍封面不署名人类（目前还是人类）译者。

“五大出版公司的高管层与其他美国大公司的高管层的共同点，比他们与为自己工作的编辑、宣传人员和译者的共同点要多得多，”《大虚构：集团化如何改变了出版业和美国文学》一书的作者丹·西尼金说。“他们总是在寻找利润最大化的方法，而现在他们正试图看看在引发反抗之前能走多远。”

我交谈过的大多数行业专业人士只是希望出版商至少能提供明确的AI使用指南和披露，以帮助缓解当前的混乱。“我们需要出版商明确说明使用了什么、何时使用，”Triangle House Literary的经纪人艾玛·德里斯说，她此前曾在哈珀柯林斯和企鹅兰登书屋从事编辑工作。与此同时，一位现任哈珀柯林斯员工表示，公司没有给出任何指示“关于如何向作者或经纪人说明这一切，因为我认为他们知道这会引发一场风暴”。

“除非这些工具被禁用——坦率地说，那会是我的首选，”德里斯继续说，“否则每个人都应该更多地沟通。”

评论

返回顶部

英文来源：

In headline after headline this year, American book publishers have appeared to be fighting back against generative AI, from suing Google for copyright infringement to canceling books by authors suspected of using LLMs.
But behind the scenes, at least three of the Big Five US book publishers—HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Hachette—have been quietly incorporating AI tools into their publishing processes without public disclosures or author consent.
According to interviews with more than two dozen workers, all of whom spoke under the condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing their employment, publishers are now using LLMs like Claude and ChatGPT to email literary agents, write publicity and back-cover copy, design cover art, and generate marketing materials, often at the direction of their executives.
At the same time, multiple editorial staffers say the widely publicized cases of authors accused of using LLMs to help write their books—like Hachette’s horror novel Shy Girl or Macmillan’s crime thriller Call Me, I’ll Hide the Body—are just the tip of the iceberg. “Every single imprint has a story of someone very esteemed who had a book canceled because of blatant AI use” without ever making the news, one editor says.
At HarperCollins senior leaders purchased Claude licenses from Anthropic months ago “but very quickly realized they didn’t know how to implement them,” according to a current employee. Dozens of junior- and senior-level staff were then “voluntold” to become “AI Champions” and were tasked with discovering use cases in monthly brainstorming sessions with staff across the company.
This spring, when some HarperCollins employees expressed concerns about the legal, ethical, and environmental impacts of AI at one of these brainstorming sessions, a person leading the meeting dismissed their qualms as “the cost of doing business,” according to someone who attended the meeting. Soon after, a statement was added to the new AI section of the HarperCollins online employee portal, noting that “while AI does have an environmental impact, it’s a small part of most individuals’ total digital carbon footprint.”
Some HarperCollins staffers were unnerved by the brainstorming sessions. “It was such a slap in the face,” says one employee. “We’ve been making valid business cases for years to be paid a healthy salary, and instead they spent that money on software that most of us don’t really want.” (The average entry-level salary for New York City publishing employees at the Big Five and Scholastic was $47,583 in 2023.) In addition to Claude, staffers say HarperCollins has also purchased licenses for ChatGPT and Jasper, an agentic platform that promises “to run end-to-end marketing workflows.”
At least one HarperCollins division has been “all in” on AI since gaining software licenses, according to one staffer, including AI-generated marketing videos. But according to workers at HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Hachette, one of the most common use cases for LLMs so far is generating publicity copy.
Readers encounter publicity copy everywhere from Amazon and Goodreads to back covers, and it’s used to pitch books to booksellers, journalists, content creators, and critics. However, “using AI to generate publicity copy is short-sighted,” a Big Five publicist tells me. “Publicists have a duty to engage in good faith with readers and our colleagues in the media, who I’m sure have a low threshold for tolerating AI-generated pitches.”
On the other hand, Meg Reid, publisher of the independent Hub City Press, says LLM-written marketing and publicity unfortunately “feels pretty inevitable” for the Big Five. “That’s one place we’re probably going to see a bigger shift between corporate publishers looking for efficiencies and smaller publishers insisting that the humans involved are the whole point.”
Meanwhile, earlier this year, literary agents began suspecting specific Big Five editors were using AI to write rejection letters. “Among colleagues, we compared emails on different books from the same editors, and they all had the same classic signs of AI writing, like ‘not this, but that’ and the rule of three,” one agent says. Employees at Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, and Hachette tell WIRED they believe the agents’ suspicions were correct.
A spokesperson for Hachette says the company “support[s] the use of AI tools for operational purposes, when they help our authors’ books reach more readers,” but that it “[does] not support creative uses of AI, including communicating with our authors and partners.”
Wibke Grutjen, global chief marketing and communications officer at Simon & Schuster, says “employees across all functions have access to a limited number of enterprise-level AI tools,” but using them is not mandatory. Grutjen said the company prohibits the use of any AI tool “that has not been vetted and approved” and that “the goal is always to free up more time for our employees to spend on deeper focus and creative work on behalf of and alongside our authors.”
HarperCollins did not respond to requests for comment.
Months ago, workers at Simon & Schuster attended a workshop with representatives from OpenAI. “The person leading the workshop genuinely had no idea what we did,” an attendee says, but one of the AI company’s recommendations for how to use ChatGPT in the book trade was, in fact, composing emails to literary agents. The practice has also grown among editors at HarperCollins and Hachette, employees say.
In May 2024, staffers say Simon & Schuster held a contest among employees to come up with the best use cases for AI, with a $10,000 prize for the winner and $5,000 each for two runners-up. Since then, the company has “rolled back some of the AI-pushing because employees kept complaining about it in town halls,” says one employee. According to several staffers, AI assets are also cropping up in cover art, with some foreign presses distributed by Simon & Schuster openly acknowledging AI use when sharing designs.
All of the agents I spoke with expressed fears that publishers might paste text from their authors’ manuscripts into the LLMs in order to generate things like rejection letters and publicity descriptions. “We’ve added AI clauses to our contracts saying ‘this material can’t be run through an LLM,’” says one agent, who did not want to be named to avoid professional repercussions. “Ostensibly, that was meant to protect authors from tech companies, but it also applies to the company buying and publishing the book. If they're not using a closed-loop model, they could be feeding an LLM with an author’s unpublished writing.” Unlike the LLMs most people use online (Google Gemini, ChatGPT, et al.), a closed-loop model operates on an individual computer or network that’s “air-gapped” so it can’t share data with the AI company’s cloud servers. One source at HarperCollins says multiple editors have asked managers if they could paste a full manuscript into an open-loop LLM and were told not to by the company’s legal team.
Hachette employees are also bracing for the company’s AI policies to “evolve” under new chief information officer Carl Hixson, due to his previous role as chief technology officer at SRMG, a Saudi state-backed company that has publicly embraced agentic AI.
Some staffers across the Big Five say they’re reluctantly experimenting with LLMs only because executives gutted their teams through layoffs and subsequently tripled their workloads.
“It’s skeleton crews everywhere you look,” says one employee. “Large teams have been reduced to just five or six people, give or take, and we’re doing double or triple the number of books. No wonder people are taking shortcuts. I don’t judge them for that. I judge the company for shoving the shortcuts down our throats and saying, ‘Do this or we fall behind.’”
In just the past few weeks, word spread among Simon & Schuster workers that the company was conducting an experimental trial with Skan AI “at the apparent urging of KKR”—the investment firm that purchased Simon & Schuster in 2023. According to its own website, Skan AI “gives leaders the evidence base they need to reduce costs, prioritize automation, and meet board-level transformation mandates.”
In response, Simon & Schuster employees began gathering signatures on an open letter to their CEO, Greg Greeley, expressing their “strong opposition” and “seeking a commitment to not bring Skan AI or other similar software into S&S workflows, either now or in the future.” Beyond the software’s surveillance capabilities, many workers were also concerned with Skan AI’s “automation discovery” tools being used to shadow and replace them.
News of the open letter was published in New York magazine’s Book Gossip newsletter on October 6. On the same day, Greeley sent a memo to Simon & Schuster employees confirming that the company has been exploring Skan AI’s Blueprint product but that “no decision has been made to use Blueprint or any other productivity-monitoring or workflow-analysis tool,” and that he “had not seen the materials relating to this early-stage exploration” before concerns were raised to him the day before. Pangram, which, for better or worse, has become the go-to AI-detection platform, indicates that at least some of Greeley’s memo was written by AI.
Almost two years ago at the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference, HarperCollins CEO Brian Murray said AI presents “more opportunities than risks” for book publishers and that he saw AI playing a role in increasing the number of translated books and audiobooks published by HarperCollins in the future. Since then, multiple editors say they’ve seen LLM-translated manuscripts with AI-use disclosures at the annual Frankfurt and London book fairs, where US publishers buy international publishing and translation rights from foreign literary agencies.
In August, Michael Reynolds, executive publisher at Europa Editions, an independent press in New York best known for publishing Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan Quartet of novels, told a room full of booksellers at the New Voices New Rooms conference in Baltimore he was excited about the possibilities for AI in translation and “seemed baffled by critiques of it,” according to attendees. Europa Editions is already controversial among literary circles for leaving the names of its human (for now) translators off the covers of its books.
“The C-suites at Big Five publishing companies have more in common with the C-suites at other major American companies than they do with the editors and publicists and translators who work for them,” says Dan Sinykin, author of Big Fiction: How Conglomeration Changed the Publishing Industry and American Literature. “They’re always looking for ways to maximize profit, and right now they’re trying to see what they can get away with before there’s a revolt.”
Most of the industry professionals I spoke with just want publishers to provide clear AI usage guidelines and disclosures, at the very least, to help mitigate the current chaos. “We need publishers to be clear about what is being used and when,” says Emma Dries, an agent at Triangle House Literary who previously worked in editorial at HarperCollins and Penguin Random House. A current HarperCollins staffer, meanwhile, says there has been no direction “about what to say to authors or agents about any of this, because I think they know it would start a shitstorm.”
“Short of these tools being banned, which would frankly be my preference,” Dries continues, “everybody should be communicating more.”
Comments
Back to top