Where is the part where they forced a pivot? They asked for AI. He said no.

578_Observer 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are technically correct. "Force" might be too strong a word. However, in banking terms, we call this "Constructive Dismissal" of the project. By attaching a condition (AI) that breaks the product's core value, the publisher effectively killed the deal while making it look like a negotiation. The author had a choice, but it was a choice between "ruining the product" or "walking away."

▲

dpark 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I get what you’re saying, but this is incorrect. The author exercised a third choice, which was to say no. This isn’t speculation. This is what the author said actually happened.

What killed this deal is that the author did not set aside enough time to do the work, and then lost interest. This seems pretty clear from the post. From my reading, it looks like the author was missing deadlines before they even brought up the topic of AI. And then continued missing deadlines and pushing out the schedule even after they said no to the AI ideas. And then ultimately put the whole thing on hold and never picked it back up.

If the publisher said “put AI in this or we kill the project”, your reading would be correct. But I don’t see that anywhere in this write up. I see an author who didn’t deliver. Not even the first third, so there wasn’t even an advanced payment.

And to be clear, I am not hating on the author here. Life happens. Interests change. All I’m saying is that this project was not canned because of the refusal to put AI into it.

▲

578_Observer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You are right. I re-read the text carefully, and your timeline is accurate. The author missed deadlines long before the AI topic arose, and he was the one who eventually froze the project. I stand corrected on calling it "Constructive Dismissal."

Perhaps the root cause of the missed deadlines was actually a "loss of conviction." The author touches on his own doubts: "With LLMs around, no one needs this book anymore." While the publisher didn't legally force him out, the "AI pressure" (both from the publisher and the market) might have eroded his belief in the product's value.

It wasn't a murder (firing), but it might have been a death by loss of passion.

	▲	dpark 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		For sure general anxiety about AI from both the publisher and the public might have contributed.

▲

shusaku 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And the only thing they asked is like to add a chapter on a machine learning algorithm. I get that everyone wants to talk about how sick of AI they are. But there are plenty of AI projects that would fit right in the spirit of the book.

	▲	Ar-Curunir 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The ML algorithm part was the _author’s_ suggestion on incorporating AI, not the publisher’s

▲

ajkjk 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> tried to

	▲	dpark 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but also > this is a textbook case of a "Failed Pivot" driven by investors It was a rejected suggestion. In no way did this actually cause the deal to fail.