Comment by 578_Observer
21 hours ago
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."
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.
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.
For sure general anxiety about AI from both the publisher and the public might have contributed.