Yes, that number is absurd. A normal person can maybe write a book a year, max. Stephen King can write two, but there's only one of him.

Maybe simple self-help books can be written a little faster, because they are shorter. A maximum set in words -- instead of books -- might work better; say 100-150k words per year?

But would that be enough? Wouldn't grifters create a multitude of accounts to publish their books?

Maybe the solution would be some kind of automated system to evaluate the quality of a book? It needn't be fine-grained, it would simply output "trash/non trash" and could try to test whether the book contains any new information not available elsewhere, or whether there are entire paragraphs taken verbatim from wikihow.

But AI-generated books may be hard to spot. Maybe there's no solution.

3 per day is absurd, but so is a maximum of one book a year. Here are some people who beat that by miles: https://thebookslist.com/most-prolific-authors/

> The second most prolific fiction writer is Charles Hamilton, 1876-1961. It is basically impossible to count his books but he is known to have written more than 100 million words, which is the equivalent of 1,200 full length novels He also wrote about 5000 short stories.

Of course there will be outliers in any category, but even then... 100 million words divided by 60 years of activity (?) is 1.6 million words a year, every single year of that period. I don't think that's possible for just one man.

But ghostwriting is as old as writing.

At 40 hours per week that's only ≈770 words per hour on average, which seems achievable.