To me, books are one of the few things that remain of the slower world that used to exist before smartphones, social media, and streaming. One thing that hasn't been made into "content". Writing them takes a long time, publishing takes a long time, and reading them takes a long time. This isn't a bad thing. Slow isn't bad and fast isn't good. Patience is a virtue that is becoming increasingly hard to come by in the age of AI-generated instant gratification.
As someone who studied graphic design, these are not stunning book covers. They are generic, and some, when looked at closely, are odd and mildly confusing:
Why is the sky red? What is going on with that girl's hands and legs? What exactly is backlighting those cowboys? It's not the sun with that giant hill in the background, etc.
The typography, while it's an improvement on the last generated type I saw, is not at a professional level at all.
At some point, everyone has to accept that art takes skill and time. We live in an instant gratification, easy-money world, which is antithetical to artistic practice. Creatives of all types need to stand together against the erosion of our industries.
They're very busy or just nonsensical. It's like the book synopsis for the image prompt was generated by AI too. Why would you ask AI to generate a "man in a suit" when your book is about "[your] journey from 3 to 51 years old"? And why from 3 to 51 specifically? Wouldn't from 1 to 51 sound better?
The crow book follows no design principles. I'm not sure what they're trying to tell with that cover except that it might be a children's book.
The raiders cover just looks boring. Nondescript cowboys in nondescript wild west town and a nonsensical mountain - the sky is below the mountain.
The last cover with the woman on the car is like the distillation of all of these problems into one image. It's busy, nonsensical (woman, car, mountains, sunrise), the text follows no hierarchy or structure (it goes from left to center to right and covers the entire thing).
None of these covers say anything at all -- not about the contents of the book necessarily, but about themselves. At most you might be able to glean the audience these books might be for. But even then it's a crapshoot because AI doesn't know what an audience likes, it just creates whatever the prompt math tells it to. It wasn't told to make a cover for teens or young adults, it was just told to make a cover.
I wonder if the prompters read any of the books first. I know not all designers do, but it's best to do so. They're certainly charging enough to offer that level of service. Though of course, a publisher shouldn't be charging at all.
I was particularly baffled by the memoir cover, having assumed it was a photo of the author. If that's the direction they chose, there is no need for a generated photo at all.
Perhaps the title was generated, too. Or the author chose it and because this place isn't a proper publishing house, no one suggested something better.
Putting aside the issue of their (lack of) artistic integrity, this whole company is an utterly baffling idea. This just seem like a glorified version of this trend of spamming platforms like Amazon and YouTube with AI-generated junk content that's only become more rampant since 2021. Not just that, but they are also vastly overcharging aspiring authors for their AI-powered publishing services; It would be far cheaper for someone to pay for a ChatGPT subscription than to give Spines money for services that, more likely than not, would be of the same quality.
And look at those so-called 'stunning' book covers. From a floating mountain, to a weird-legged model and a clear copyright infringement, they would be rejected by any professional publisher. If those are their best, I shudder to think what their worst are like. Clearly amateur hour. But turned into a publishing scam nevertheless.
What does all AI and its enshittification sit on? Data data data data. If AI companies had to prove that none of their amassed data contravened any intellectual property copyrights an entirely different situation would exist. Unpaid-for data are 'free' raw materials for those looking to financial alchemy. Straw into gold. Base metal into gold. Data into gold. The whole AI enterprise is soley about numbers. Spines is solely about numbers. Money is numbers, as is the malfunction and pathological accumulation of it to the exclusion of all else.
And on AI goes, after slashing the translating industry, let's move to publishing... It's sickening really. I'm always glad to see people rally against AI when it's clearly destrying people's livelihood and craft, but I'm not so optimistic about the future. I think there are a lot more Valerie Prices who can't distinguish "professional" from "generic" than there are of us, unfortunately!
I am wondering if the idea of 'follow me as a I write this' by way of vlogs and photos will be a great way to not only engage followers and fans, but also help market books written by people. A bit like in mathematics class when were at school, the teacher wants to see evidence that you worked the equations out yourself and didn't need a calculator. Who knows, evidence-lead human written books might gain premium prices?
I'm relying on books to be my refuge in an enshitttified world. But the volume of books currently available already requires a discovery filter system: word of mouth recommendations, book reviews, etc. I don't value AI content unless I've called directly for it myself, so my filter system will be updated to exclude it. I suppose for a while I will need to stick to books published prior to 2024 to be sure, but that's enough choice for fifty lifetimes and plenty to see me through society's AI maturation phase
To me, books are one of the few things that remain of the slower world that used to exist before smartphones, social media, and streaming. One thing that hasn't been made into "content". Writing them takes a long time, publishing takes a long time, and reading them takes a long time. This isn't a bad thing. Slow isn't bad and fast isn't good. Patience is a virtue that is becoming increasingly hard to come by in the age of AI-generated instant gratification.
As someone who studied graphic design, these are not stunning book covers. They are generic, and some, when looked at closely, are odd and mildly confusing:
Why is the sky red? What is going on with that girl's hands and legs? What exactly is backlighting those cowboys? It's not the sun with that giant hill in the background, etc.
The typography, while it's an improvement on the last generated type I saw, is not at a professional level at all.
At some point, everyone has to accept that art takes skill and time. We live in an instant gratification, easy-money world, which is antithetical to artistic practice. Creatives of all types need to stand together against the erosion of our industries.
They're very busy or just nonsensical. It's like the book synopsis for the image prompt was generated by AI too. Why would you ask AI to generate a "man in a suit" when your book is about "[your] journey from 3 to 51 years old"? And why from 3 to 51 specifically? Wouldn't from 1 to 51 sound better?
The crow book follows no design principles. I'm not sure what they're trying to tell with that cover except that it might be a children's book.
The raiders cover just looks boring. Nondescript cowboys in nondescript wild west town and a nonsensical mountain - the sky is below the mountain.
The last cover with the woman on the car is like the distillation of all of these problems into one image. It's busy, nonsensical (woman, car, mountains, sunrise), the text follows no hierarchy or structure (it goes from left to center to right and covers the entire thing).
None of these covers say anything at all -- not about the contents of the book necessarily, but about themselves. At most you might be able to glean the audience these books might be for. But even then it's a crapshoot because AI doesn't know what an audience likes, it just creates whatever the prompt math tells it to. It wasn't told to make a cover for teens or young adults, it was just told to make a cover.
I wonder if the prompters read any of the books first. I know not all designers do, but it's best to do so. They're certainly charging enough to offer that level of service. Though of course, a publisher shouldn't be charging at all.
I was particularly baffled by the memoir cover, having assumed it was a photo of the author. If that's the direction they chose, there is no need for a generated photo at all.
Perhaps the title was generated, too. Or the author chose it and because this place isn't a proper publishing house, no one suggested something better.
Putting aside the issue of their (lack of) artistic integrity, this whole company is an utterly baffling idea. This just seem like a glorified version of this trend of spamming platforms like Amazon and YouTube with AI-generated junk content that's only become more rampant since 2021. Not just that, but they are also vastly overcharging aspiring authors for their AI-powered publishing services; It would be far cheaper for someone to pay for a ChatGPT subscription than to give Spines money for services that, more likely than not, would be of the same quality.
And look at those so-called 'stunning' book covers. From a floating mountain, to a weird-legged model and a clear copyright infringement, they would be rejected by any professional publisher. If those are their best, I shudder to think what their worst are like. Clearly amateur hour. But turned into a publishing scam nevertheless.
Author and illustrator Kaz Windness has pointed out that Spines is a vanity publisher, charging authors to publish, which proper publishers never do.
What does all AI and its enshittification sit on? Data data data data. If AI companies had to prove that none of their amassed data contravened any intellectual property copyrights an entirely different situation would exist. Unpaid-for data are 'free' raw materials for those looking to financial alchemy. Straw into gold. Base metal into gold. Data into gold. The whole AI enterprise is soley about numbers. Spines is solely about numbers. Money is numbers, as is the malfunction and pathological accumulation of it to the exclusion of all else.
Gosh those guys look insufferable.
And on AI goes, after slashing the translating industry, let's move to publishing... It's sickening really. I'm always glad to see people rally against AI when it's clearly destrying people's livelihood and craft, but I'm not so optimistic about the future. I think there are a lot more Valerie Prices who can't distinguish "professional" from "generic" than there are of us, unfortunately!
The newly coined word enshittify is going to have a big year in '25.
Yeah these guys asked me to sample their product. Pretty bland stuff. Like reading bathroom wallpaper.
I am wondering if the idea of 'follow me as a I write this' by way of vlogs and photos will be a great way to not only engage followers and fans, but also help market books written by people. A bit like in mathematics class when were at school, the teacher wants to see evidence that you worked the equations out yourself and didn't need a calculator. Who knows, evidence-lead human written books might gain premium prices?
I'm relying on books to be my refuge in an enshitttified world. But the volume of books currently available already requires a discovery filter system: word of mouth recommendations, book reviews, etc. I don't value AI content unless I've called directly for it myself, so my filter system will be updated to exclude it. I suppose for a while I will need to stick to books published prior to 2024 to be sure, but that's enough choice for fifty lifetimes and plenty to see me through society's AI maturation phase
i find valerie price's claim that she's a total computer noob in 2024 suspicious 🤨