The author is basically taking a situation open to interpretation and using it to slam capitalism as producing mechanical literature?
His conglomerate/nonprofit dichotomy is more accurately free-market vs. state-sponsored. The "conglomerates" which come off as evil in the story have to prove their value to their customers who voluntarily fund them. The "non-profits" are free from the constraint of needing people to actually want to read their books because the population is forced by the government to fund them via taxes.
There are very interesting questions of how economic forces affect art and culture but this author isn't asking them.
If anything the machine learning model showed that when people voluntarily and intentionally fund the publication of books they prefer a certain type of language, but how this author sees this language as "mechanical" is beyond me.
His conglomerate/nonprofit dichotomy is more accurately free-market vs. state-sponsored. The "conglomerates" which come off as evil in the story have to prove their value to their customers who voluntarily fund them. The "non-profits" are free from the constraint of needing people to actually want to read their books because the population is forced by the government to fund them via taxes.
There are very interesting questions of how economic forces affect art and culture but this author isn't asking them.
If anything the machine learning model showed that when people voluntarily and intentionally fund the publication of books they prefer a certain type of language, but how this author sees this language as "mechanical" is beyond me.