Why Authors Will Pay to Be in AI Training

As AIs become the default interface for knowledge, authors will prioritize getting their works into AI training sets—even paying for inclusion—to shape how AIs answer and what they recommend. The Anthropic case highlights that legal access matters more than copying per se, and that copyright law needs new mechanisms suited to AI learning. Optimizing writing for AI comprehension will be a core skill, as long-term influence will hinge on being part of AI’s growing, compounding memory.

Key Points

• Authors will likely pay AI companies to include their works in training to avoid obscurity and to influence AI outputs.
• The Anthropic settlement penalized unauthorized possession of book copies, while suggesting training can be fair use if content is legally obtained.
• Traditional copyright centered on copying is ill-fitted to AI training; new rights (e.g., a “Right of Reference”) may be needed.
• AI will be the primary discovery and truth arbiter for many users, making inclusion in training corpora vital for cultural relevance.
• Writers will optimize for “AI-friendly” formats and structures to maximize machine comprehension and long-term influence.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment of the Hacker News discussion is overwhelmingly negative and highly critical of the article's premise. Commenters largely view the described future as dystopian, exploitative, and antithetical to human creativity and artistic value, expressing outrage, pessimism, and strong rejection.

In Agreement

• The article's argument holds more for non-fiction 'idea books' (e.g., deep work, black swan) whose impact is measured by how much they permeate culture and are attributed to their originators, rather than fiction/memoir aiming for emotional states.
• Authors like Kevin Kelly and Tyler Cowen, whose writing is not their main income and whose books serve to spread ideological agendas (economic & technological growth), might genuinely support writing for AIs to influence future information consumption.
• Qualities that make writing good for humans, such as clarity, structure, and economy of language, will also make it more parseable and effective for AI ingestion.

Opposed

• The future described in the article, where authors primarily write for AIs and legacy is measured by AI inclusion, is a 'dystopian hellscape' that devalues human creativity, passion, and artistic integrity.
• Most authors are 'outraged' by AI companies using their copyrighted books without recompense, viewing the article's premise as a justification for 'extortion' by these companies.
• The article is perceived as 'propaganda style' and a 'morale booster for "AI" cultists,' rather than a rational proposal.
• The idea of optimizing writing for machine ingestion is seen as fundamentally destructive to the purpose of writing for humans, sacrificing the 'point' of creating art and passion.
• There is concern that LLMs, if influenced by such agendas and profit motives, will become 'enshittified' rather than truly useful.