Why AI Sucks and People Who Argue Are Trying to Sell Something

 About fifteen years ago, there were videos all over YouTube, websites, and advertisements promoting that you could get rich quick by hiring a freelancer to write your book(s) and then publishing them on Amazon or other platforms. Like any get-rich-quick scheme, these were bologna. Good freelancers cost money that most people couldn't afford to invest. If they did, they would soon discover that they then needed to come up with the money and time to market the book. This can cost four to five times as much as getting the book published. 

Now, all those get-rich-quick schemes have rebooted with AI in the place of freelancers--after all, you can use AI for free all over the web. In addition to the plagiarism problems that also happen with freelancers, you now have serious issues with the quality of AI writing. It's garbage. 

I came across an ad today talking about how it is the person's problem and not the AI's fault if the AI gives you garbage. This is another big fat lie. Obviously, the ad said, you aren't giving the AI enough information to do a good job. I could die laughing at this one as I am struggling to get my favorite free AI to generate the book cover I have envisioned for The Inconvenient Sister. 

First, you may ask why I am struggling with AI that isn't putting out what I want when there are plenty of other platforms. My biggest reason is because I have worked with other AI, and I also know its limitations. I think we are about as good as we are going to ever get with it. I also don't want to spend time looking for something that may or may not exist. Deep AI does a variety of things for free without requiring me to sign in. I need the image generator and right now, I haven't found too many free image generators. Feel free to leave a comment if you have one you like. 

So, let's address the problem that the ad mentioned--not specific instructions. 

Here is what I put in the prompt: "1750s dressed 28-year-old man with long, black, braid and green eyes and white cravat next to a 20-year old corseted woman with brown hair in bun and blue eyes standing in street." To me, this is pretty specific. I have gone into even more detail with the imagery and found that at a certain point the AI breaks down and doesn't give me anything better. I think with this prompt, which has been expanded as I see issues in the picture, it has too much information for the AI to process. I will probably have to ditch the ages. 

Now, AI could get this wrong in a variety of ways that I have not specified. For example, it could (and does) give me tons of non-period clothing even though I specified 1750s because I did not detail each piece of clothing they are wearing. However, it also totally screws up the things I have been clear about. I get men with 10 braids and women with braids. I get men with no braid and a man bun. I even get two cross-dressing women. Most irritating is that I get men with dark brown eyes and women with auburn hair instead of brown hair. Those two things I have been very specific about, so I cannot understand how anyone could support AI that screws that up. I have gone through about 100 images right now, so I will cut out some of the details and see if I can get it to go better for me. Since these things should be easy enough to find, especially 1750s clothing and hazel eyes, it is extremely irritating that the AI can't figure it out. 

Applying to Freelance at Reedsy

 Most of you know that although I am a devoted Guru fan, I haven't been getting much work there since I returned to freelancing. In fact, much work in the writing area hasn't been posted to bid on. I assume this is because all those "get-rich-quick" YouTube schemes that used to focus on hiring a freelancer to write/edit a book for you to post on Amazon have now turned into letting ChatGPT write your story for you. Good luck with that... 

So, I reevaluated Upwork because that and Guru have traditionally been the best freelance websites, in my opinion. This is primarily because of the SafePay/Escrow features. 

I did recently see a promotion (or rather an anti-promotion) for Reedsy. It was by a vanity press trying to sell its own "cheap" editing services. I investigated and discovered that according to Reedsy itself, its freelancers make a whole lot more than what I usually make, and they primarily attract overflow work from traditional publishers. This looked appealing. 

The catch is that they are picky in whom they "hire" or rather allow to work on their website. You fill out a profile, with a minimum of three links to books on Amazon and your website, and then they look and see if you are good enough to work for them. They do not, however, during this application process specify what you need to get hired--er, rather to work on their website. This is buried in a separate link.

First, you have to have worked in traditional publishing as an editor. For me, this was no problem because I have. The problem is that they want you to link to the books where you have worked as an editor--but these books can only be on Amazon because they will not let you upload a book from smaller, niche publishing company websites or from university publishing companies (where the theses and dissertations I have edited are published).

Presumably, you have to actually be credited as the editor (and I am not sure if I have ever been because I contractually do not allow my clients to use my name on their work without written permission--I also work under a lot of non-disclosure agreements). So, in short, I could not upload any of my "real" work. They do not tell you why you are denied, but I am certain this was one reason.

Second, although the profile you fill out asks for 3-5 book links, the hidden page on what they are looking for says you must have at least 5. Since they will not allow you to upload any more than 5, I question how you can have "at least 5." Perhaps they should have one of their editors look at their requirements and update them.  

I am glad there are "freelancing" websites that actually screen their employees. However, I have used many good editors on Guru who have probably not ever worked for a traditional publishing company. I also don't think a link on Amazon is the best way to determine if a publishing company is a valid publishing company. I cannot tell you how many publishing companies that have been formed in the past 5 years and post all their books on Amazon because they technically are self-publishing other people's books, are not legitimate publishing companies. 

The problem is that they cater to traditional publishing companies (the only ones who can probably afford to pay the prices). It makes perfect sense that they would want to use people who already have worked there. My question is, why are these people now freelancing if they were good editors at their respective publishing companies?

I do wish I had known these requirements before I went through the process of applying. It was a complete waste of time and had I known the requirements beforehand I wouldn't have bothered.

Kirkus Review's Slant for Traditional Publishers

Traditional publishers and those who service them are not ignorant about the self-publishing cash cow. Kirkus, a review service that has been around since the 1930s, specifically focused on traditional publishers and was funded by them, until it learned it could make money from indie publishers. It then set up its "Kirkus Indie Reviews." Now, in general, Kirkus only gifts less than 3% of all the books it reviews with a star. It also only gifts about 10% of its reviewed books with a "Get it" status (the second highest favorable review). Most of its books get general reviews containing the good and the bad, and I read about 20% end up with bad reviews. That means, starting off, you have a 1 in 5 chance of paying over $400 for a bad review. 

For comparison, if you submit your book for the traditional Kirkus review (which I believe is only for traditional publishers), the editors will pick which books get any review (I believe this is 10,000 books per year) and 10% of those books will get a star. 

Whichever way your book gets a Kirkus review, understand that you cannot get a star just because the reviewer liked your book (i.e. you cannot become eligible for their $50,000 prize just because you got an excellent review). The editors at Kirkus are solely responsible for giving out the stars and promoting the book.

However, Indie authors need to be aware of a few contract clauses that Kirkus has stuffed in that mean you may not be getting a fair review. Note: although the top of the Contract says it is a general contract, it specifically talks about Kirkus Indie--so it does not apply to traditional publishers.

First, know that you cannot cancel the contract, but Kirkus can cancel it as long as it refunds your money. It does have any time limits on when it must do this, however. 

The most important and detrimental thing about their contract is two-fold. (1) You do not have any input into who is reading your book, and Kirkus does not have any contractual guidelines that limit who can read your book. This is important because Kirkus can assign your book to be reviewed by anyone. If you have a sci-fi book, they could give it to someone who only reads romance. Even worse, they could give your romance to a computer programmer who only reads books when he gets paid to do so by Kirkus. His review, based on his lack of knowledge about any sort of writing except computer programming, is perfectly acceptable under the Kirkus contract and you cannot complain about it. Nowhere in the contract does it say the reviewer has to be qualified to review the book, but it does say you cannot even request that the reviewer is qualified to review the book.

(2) In addition to the above, under "Miscellaneous," they clearly state they can hire freelancers to review your book. This means, you are not getting reviewed by Kirkus review staff with years of experience. No, if you are an Indie author, you are going to be reviewed by a freelancer. 

Kirkus' contract fully covers its butt. In my opinion, its "Indie" section is nothing more than a moneymaker for its annual award, which it usually gives to traditionally published authors. In 2024, all the finalists were from major publishing companies or their imprints. I did not go back further than this, but I presume the results are the same every year--especially since it seems most of the stars go to books selected from traditional publishers by editors and those same editors give out the stars. 

They state they make the "best efforts to provide" an unbiased book review. It does not say they will provide an unbiased book review. Nor does it say they will provide a "fair" book review, i.e. one by a qualified reviewer who actually reads your book in its entirety. 

Kirkus has been targeting Indie authors for years with marketing campaigns. My advice to those who are self-publishing is to save your money.