Would you consider it a classic? I’m sorry, my school system privileged the British literature and I’m only now catching up on the US one :’)

Companies will try. Poorly written AI articles are already all over the internet. They will eventually be forcing AI written books down our throats I'm sure.

Thank you so much! I will try and check them out :)

Thanks! I’ll keep that in mind

thank you! will def read it

I’m not familiar with drama you mentioned, but you could check out Eleanor & Park by Rainbow Rowell. It’s a very sweet; you might like it

She didn’t help solve the crime

I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the book was ever actually supposed to be about the Golden State Killer; it was supposed to be about Michelle McNamara’s obsession with the Golden State Killer. Though the marketing has always pushed it as true crime. I too had problems with the book, but ultimately felt is succeeded as a self examination

This is one of my favorite books but it didn't really reach that status for me until I read it twice. I think you start to get a better feel once you understand the characters and their motivation. Then you can re-read it and dig more into their meanings.

One week today we will get Eleanor Catton's first book since winning the Booker prize with The Luminaries which was one of my favourites.

As my spoiler-filled comment elsewhere in this thread makes clear, I agree that CoR isn't as good of a book as CoT. However, I still think it's a very good book. And, more importantly to your point, I don't think it detracts from CoT in any way.

I know what you mean where sometimes a sequel can ruin (pun!) one's feelings about the first book in a series. This sometimes happens because a sequel is so awful that it leaves a bad taste about the entire series, and it sometimes happens because new information is revealed that retrospectively messes up plot points one liked in the first book. I don't think either of those things are true about CoR.

So even if you don't like it as much as CoT, I don't think it will impact how much you liked CoT. In fact, I think it's still additive even if it's not quite as great.

I don’t want to speak Ill of the dead, but Michelle McNamara wasn’t any closer to solving this case than any of the thousands of other internet sleuths that have been obsessing over EAR/ONS for decades. Her one and only contributing was coining the term “Golden State Killer”. Her writing helped to renew interest in this old case, her untimely death amplified that interest, and the Golden State Killer was caught right about the time her book was being readied for publication. For these reasons a lot of people ended up thinking she had actually solved the case

I thought it was very well written, and I enjoyed the parts about her life. I am not, generally, a fan of the "true-crime" genre, but since this subverted the genre, I enjoyed it, though it is perhaps this same subversion that many of you object to.

At the very least, her work and notes led directly to finding the Golden State Killer, which has been well documented. Without Michele's work, he likely would not have been captured.

I kinda figured this would happen when I saw what ChatGPT was doing, and here we are. Please remember that it is not actually as smart as it appears.

Basically, what it is doing is stringing words together which statistically often go together, and then stringing those sentences together because they often go together. It is basically Google search suggestions, on steroids. You'll notice that it starts to lose the thread of what it was supposed to be saying after a couple paragraphs, and just rambles in bizarre digressions after that. One poster here, as a joke, had it write a short novel inspired by the comedy series Black Books, and discovered that they had to work on it chapter by chapter, regenerating each one until they got one which made some sort of thematic sense rather than just being idle rambling -- this was actually a pretty useful experiment for showing the limitations of the tool. Arguably, that poster was still "the real author," or at least a very heavy-handed editor, and the chatbot was a tool.

No, AI is not going to be writing novels anytime soon, unless you are fine with novels which are just meandering, unedited thoughts off the top of The Internet's head. So far it is just generating low-quality, 3-paragraph filler content which people were not expected to read in the first place, like press releases and reddit posts. People whipping up books and loading them onto Amazon are just looking to make a quick buck selling cheap junk, like they already did in previous years by just copy-pasting someone else's fan fiction.

ETA: I searched high and low for that post because credit is due, and apparently it was removed. Whatever, I guess you'll have to take my word for it.

Good to hear and thank you. I haven't read CoM one yet. (I needed a break after CoT and CoR back-to-back.) But your comment makes me more interested in putting it back into my reading list!

AI produces art on demand, catering to specific prompts and requests. Which some people will prefer. But there will also be readers who want to be challenged, and will read out of their comfort zone.

I read both of these books recently and I feel very similarly to you. Both very good books that I enjoyed, but the second one had some clearer flaws. Those flaws didn't ruin the reading experience, but did mean after it was over I felt less satisfied.

I agree with your review, and have one thing to add. (And thank you for giving me the opportunity! I've been mulling this over for a while and didn't know where to share my thoughts.)

Spoilers follow! [Edit: MAJOR spoilers. Do not click and read the below if you haven't read the books and don't want them spoiled.]

>!The OP has pointed out how the structures have some parallels. One more major parallel is how a technology introduced earlier on in the book is then responsible for the climatic ending where multiple sentient species are able to come to a joint understanding. In Time it's the "smart virus" that is used to help the humans feel kinship with the spiders and avert disaster. In Ruin it's the brain interface that allows Kern to make real contact with the The Many and avert disaster.!<

>!In the first CoT book, the virus is fundamental to the plot. It drives the entire novel, since it's what allows the spiders to evolve into an advanced species and contributes to their whole memory-transfer ability. So when that virus is used to bring the humans into a feeling of kinship with the spiders it feels like a really logical conclusion to the storyline.!<

>!The problem in the second CoR book is that the brain-interface technology is not fundamental to the plot. In fact, many if not most of the scenes where the book explores that technology feel ancillary from what is going on. Yes, it's interesting and important how that technology gives Kern the ability to "feel" emotions again, and the way she those emotions distract her does have plot relevancy. But the whole book could have definitely been written with all of these scenes removed, except for (of course) the climax.!<

>!So, the conclusion of the second book felt less satisfying to me than that of the first. In retrospect it became clear that the author had added this technological diversion side-plot in order to deliver that conclusion, rather than having told an organic story with an organic conclusion. (In other terms, it made the "author's hand" a little too obvious.) !<

Anyway, that's not saying the second book wasn't a good book or that I didn't enjoy it. Just a plot point (a major one) that didn't work for me as well as it did in the first book.

I could see AI writing a Sanderson novel and selling really well

>Do you think that in the future can AI replace writers?

No. Do I think bad writers will be replaced - yeah. Content creation is dead. Only art will survive.

AI can't imagine. But it can put basic info into established structures. So James Patterson can let his ghostwriters go and use AI - I'm not sure his fans would see much difference.

Same with cheap TV scripts.

The only things that will survive the AI industrial revolution is genuine imagination and originality.

Writing is the easy part. Let’s see AI that can edit/proofread and go through the publishing process.

The amount of validation seeking and insecurity in this sub is exhausting

The main problem is that no one considers Asimov "classic literature" so I don't see what he's whining about.

Reddit, not kidding.

We have machine knitting but people still knit. We have machine made pottery but people still hand make pottery. We will have AI writing but people will still write.

I read her Harry Potter fan fiction long ago..so so good. She basically writes the same things, with different names.