Best current guidance on Literotica and AI

[EmilyMiller]

THIS IS BASED ON STUFF I HAVE PICKED UP AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL LITEROTICA ANNOUNCEMENT

I posted this on an AI thread and it was suggested I add it as a stand-alone post. One which might get pinned by @AH_Mod or @Laurel (assuming they agree with the contents).

I have edited it slightly to make it more coherent as a stand-alone message.

March 2024

—

Modified based on further feedback (03/20/2024 17:00 EST)

—

There is a lot of supposition and statements that things are true without any supporting evidence on [AI-related] threads. There is also a lot of emotion. That’s all understandable as I get how much it must hurt to be caught up in this loop.

Having spoken to Laurel (@Portly_Penguin can attest to this) there is absolutely no intent to upset authors. I am absolutely not an official Literotica spokesperson, but I can suggest the following:

1. AI submissions are potentially a big problem for the site. Other sites have become inundated with them, and Literotica wants to avoid this
2. The only person who reviews submissions is Laurel - there is not a team of people doing this, just one overworked woman
3. The AI detection tools are far from perfect, but the site has embraced the principle of zero tolerance for AI. This is to protect authors as much as anything
4. This will inevitably lead to false positives - and the need for additional AI checks has slowed the process
5. Literotica wants to publish your stories, but wants to ensure that they are free of AI. This is for the good of the whole community
6. There has sometimes (and I’m not suggesting anyone on [the various AI-related] threads is guilty of this) been a disconnect between what authors have initially claimed and then later admitted. This has understandably reduced the site’s faith in authors simply stating “I didn’t use AI”
7. This is a very fluid situation and - to employ an over used phrase - an unprecedented one
8. My personal view is that some calm and understanding would go a long way to improving things

Emily

ADDENDUM:

I understand that the problem is mostly using things like Grammarly suggestions to improve text. I’m going to stress this bit. Mostly the author deletes and rewrites the section and it goes through the second time. Mostly… not always (we have heard about exceptions on this thread). So it is helpful to know that at least some stories that were flagged then got approved.

What has been unhelpful (and I’m not suggesting anyone here has done this) is authors accepting that they used a tool with an element of GAI and then submitting the same text saying that they didn’t. So either their first admission was wrong or their second claim is wrong.

Contrary to popular opinion, Laurel neither replies to, nor acts on, everything I contact her about. But she often does and I appreciate it when this happens. Please persist with her, but also give her some time. And if a problem has been identified, please don’t resubmit the same text. This last is maybe contrary to advice provided elsewhere. Either try to address the issue, or get in contact to explain your POV.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

. I am absolutely not an official Literotica spokesperson,

Riiight...



1. That's easy to believe.

2. I remain unconvinced of this.

3. That's fine and I support it, but even though I doubt #2, if #2 is actually true then some changes need to be made because everything else is suffering because of it.

5. Completely agree. Human-made garbage is already quite large anyway.

6. Judging by my own case, which is completely AI-unrelated, her faith in authors is non-existent so there wasn't much to be lost there.

7. Definitely, but it's been going on for a while and the website's (Laurel's) reluctance to adapt to it has led to this chaos right now. When I say adapt I don't mean accept AI content, I mean that she should increase the manpower or make some changes in her procedures because AI isn't going anywhere.

8. Understanding and calmness are derived from trust, which is something that needs to be built over time. That is clearly impossible in a setup where the website's boss refuses to communicate with anybody. Keeping even some minuscule public communication with the authors and readers through the forum would go a long way. That being said, she clearly doesn't need to do that as she has complete control of her website and is completely uninterested in hearing our thoughts. This relationship we have is not a symbiosis, it's a take it or leave it setup and that is completely okay if that's what she desires to do with her website, but in that case, asking for understanding and calmness sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Riiight...



1. That's easy to believe.

2. I remain unconvinced of this.

3. That's fine and I support it, but even though I doubt #2, if #2 is actually true then some changes need to be made because everything else is suffering because of it.

5. Completely agree. Human-made garbage is already quite large anyway.

6. Judging by my own case, which is completely AI-unrelated, her faith in authors is non-existent so there wasn't much to be lost there.

7. Definitely, but it's been going on for a while and the website's (Laurel's) reluctance to adapt to it has led to this chaos right now. When I say adapt I don't mean accept AI content, I mean that she should increase the manpower or make some changes in her procedures because AI isn't going anywhere.

8. Understanding and calmness are derived from trust, which is something that needs to be built over time. That is clearly impossible in a setup where the website's boss refuses to communicate with anybody. Keeping even some minuscule public communication with the authors and readers through the forum would go a long way. That being said, she clearly doesn't need to do that as she has complete control of her website and is completely uninterested in hearing our thoughts. This relationship we have is not a symbiosis, it's a take it or leave it setup and that is completely okay if that's what she desires to do with her website, but in that case, asking for understanding and calmness sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

Your personal experiences are no more indicative of the general experience than my, much more positive, ones are.

This is - I think - part of the problem. People are assuming things are personal, when they are not. People are assuming there is ill-intent when there is none. People are assuming levels of service that would probably necessitate a paid subscription model.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

That is clearly impossible in a setup where the website's boss refuses to communicate with anybody.

The use of "anybody" in this statement is patently untrue. It may be true for you and her. I have no idea why. But it is not true in general - again, I'll seek @Portly_Penguin's corroboration of this.

It's hyperbolic statements like this, which I think are really unhelpful.

Emily

 

[AwkwardlySet]

People are assuming levels of service that would probably necessitate a paid subscription model.

I wholeheartedly suggest the transition towards this model if it would mean our voices being heard.

Your personal experiences are no more indicative of the general experience than my, much more positive, ones are.

Never said they were. Your post was based on your positive communications with laurel and mine are based on the opposite. If our forum is an indicator at all, I would say that negative ones outnumber the positive ones, but maybe that's just my impression.

This is - I think - part of the problem. People are assuming things are personal, when they are not. People are assuming there is ill-intent when there is none.

How can you possibly know this? What I see is people being treated unequally in PMs, so it's natural to draw some conclusions from it. I understand that my conclusions might be baseless but due to the absence of communication I have nothing else to draw my conclusions from.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

That is clearly impossible in a setup where the website's boss refuses to communicate with anybody. K

The use of "anybody" in this statement is patently untrue. It may be true for you and her. I have no idea why. But it is not true in general - again, I'll seek @Portly_Penguin's corroboration of this.

It's hyperbolic statements like this, which I think are really unhelpful.

Emily

I wasn't talking about PMs here, of course. She speaks to you, clearly. I meant public communication through the forum.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I wholeheartedly suggest the transition towards this model if it would mean our voices being heard.


Never said they were. Your post was based on your positive communications with laurel and mine are based on the opposite. If our forum is an indicator at all, I would say that negative ones outnumber the positive ones, but maybe that's just my impression.


How can you possibly know this? What I see is people being treated unequally in PMs, so it's natural to draw some conclusions from it. I understand that my conclusions might be baseless but due to the absence of communication I have nothing else to draw my conclusions from.

I'd suggest taking your personal concerns up with the site directly, or in another thread. This one is intended to provide some information to the community based on my own best endeavors.

I can't resolve your problems with Literotica and posting here about them can't either.

I'd personally appreciate you doing as I suggest.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

Again, I don’t work for Literotica. I’m just an author like you guys. This post is not intended to be a vehicle for airing grievances. There are tens of such threads already open, if not hundreds.

This thread is intended to be informational only. And again it’s based solely on my own endeavors.

Emily

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'd suggest taking your personal concerns up with the site directly, or in another thread. This one is intended to provide some information to the community based on my own best endeavors.

I can't resolve your problems with Literotica and posting here about them can't either.

I'd personally appreciate you doing as I suggest.

Emily

I tried to do it directly, I really tried, but without any results, so I am also one of those frustrated authors, even if my own frustrations aren't AI-based.

I understand that your desires in this case are pure and that you only wish to provide some guidance for the frustrated authors who have AI-related trouble, but from a certain perspective it sounded as if you were making excuses for Laurel - thus my reaction.

All that being said, I will respect your wishes and stop posting in this thread.

 

[SimonDoom]

I have had a message exchange with Laurel on the AI issue, and without quoting it vebatim, my impressions, based on that and also on my longstanding experience here, are the same as Emily's.

I don't think there is any reason to doubt that this is a shoestring, mom-and-pop operation with significant personnel limitations on the ability to be as fast and responsive as it otherwise would be. I see no reason why Laurel and Manu would have an incentive to engage in subterfuge on the issue and this view is consistent with what other oldtimers have been saying for as long as I've been here. I have no idea how they manage to operate this site, but my lack of knowledge isn't a basis for speculating about what's "really" going on.

I have no opinion on the effectiveness of AI detection software because I don't have any experience with or knowledge of the subject other than what I've read in this forum. It strikes me that there are a lot of false positives, but I can understand and sympathize with the desire to regulate AI-generated stories, which I strongly don't want to see, at the risk of some false positives, which understandably are vexing to authors.

 

[PrincessArianrhod]

8. Understanding and calmness are derived from trust, which is something that needs to be built over time. That is clearly impossible in a setup where the website's boss refuses to communicate with anybody. Keeping even some minuscule public communication with the authors and readers through the forum would go a long way. That being said, she clearly doesn't need to do that as she has complete control of her website and is completely uninterested in hearing our thoughts. This relationship we have is not a symbiosis, it's a take it or leave it setup and that is completely okay if that's what she desires to do with her website, but in that case, asking for understanding and calmness sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

The creator of anything engaging with the recipients of their creation is always a 2-edged sword. While it can lead to a mutually beneficial dialogue in some cases, in others it can be a mine field of misunderstanding, entitlement and irritation. As writers, do we we find the time to answer every question, indulge every request or suggestion? We have a free platform to post the scribblings of our erotic imaginations, Laurel has the problems of managing the logistics of that platform. She doesn't owe us any more than we owe her and our relationship with Literotica is whatever we want it to be - the onus is on us to take or leave what is offered.

My (hot) take on the AI debacle, unwelcome as it may be, is that if you're 100% not using AI to craft your stories and still having them rejected as AI content, the lexicon of said stories must share, in no small part, the predictability of AI writing. Don't take it as a slur; adapt, improve and write your way around it. You might just find your writing improves as a result.

 

[samhasstories]

My (hot) take on the AI debacle, unwelcome as it may be, is that if you're 100% not using AI to craft your stories and still having them rejected as AI content, the lexicon of said stories must share, in no small part, the predictability of AI writing. Don't take it as a slur; adapt, improve and write your way around it. You might just find your writing improves as a result.

I've always sort of assumed the same. The amount of blue squiggly lines Word adds to my work that I don't heed seems to reinforce that I'm not writing like the Machines think I should.

I will of course immediately dismiss my assumption as preposterous the moment any of my own work gets flagged for AI.

 

[PrincessArianrhod]

I will of course immediately dismiss my assumption as preposterous the moment any of my own work gets flagged for AI.

That's a given, of course!

 

[MillieDynamite]

I've been reworking stories up for sale and checking them for wooden sentences, which seem to trigger an AI detector. These are of the simple variety: "He walked to the door." "He strolled to the door." "He ambled to the door." "He strutted to the door." All of those flag as AI in some checkers. Overcomplicated sentences are flagged as AI if they come across as wooden writing. I'm pretty bad about both of these things. So, I'm trying to get those kinds of things culled out before I post here from now on.

Not exactly sure what is meant by wooden writing. Every sentence can be filled with emotion. Over emotional text can also be flagged as AI.

 

[PrincessArianrhod]

Not exactly sure what is meant by wooden writing. Every sentence can be filled with emotion. Over emotional text can also be flagged as AI.

In essence, it's a minefield of misunderstanding. Not the AI revolution we expected, feared, or hoped for...

 

[MillieDynamite]

AI is taking over in a far more benign, banal manner. Not threatening our existence, (not yet), but imbuing itself into our daily life. Our TVs, our phones, and our cars bid their time as a friendly helper until they pounce and kill us in our sleep.

In essence, it's a minefield of misunderstanding. Not the AI revolution we expected, feared, or hoped for...

 

[EmilyMiller]

My (hot) take on the AI debacle, unwelcome as it may be, is that if you're 100% not using AI to craft your stories and still having them rejected as AI content, the lexicon of said stories must share, in no small part, the predictability of AI writing. Don't take it as a slur; adapt, improve and write your way around it. You might just find your writing improves as a result.

This is a hopefully informational addition to this topic, I’m intending to practice what I preach.

I have reviewed I think around eight bits of prose rejected as being AI. The one thing they had in common was a slight uncanny valley formality. Like they had been translated into English. Translated well. But the English was almost too correct. They read more like a user manual. Or - more personally - the type of formal report I write at work.

Maybe that’s a style thing, or maybe the writer has English as a second language.

My writing has errors and colloquialisms and informalities. I use contractions like should’ve and can’t a lot, especially in dialog. I use “gonna” and “kinda” like I do when writing here. I use “ya” instead of “you” and so on. My style is pretty loose, especially with dialog.

Emily

 

[VallesMarineris]

Maybe we writers should be pro-active and check our own work before submitting it. Here's a free Web-based checker:

https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/

I tried it out on my recently-publish 750-word story, and got 99% probability that it was human-written, which was gratifying. Another one got 98%.

Then I dug up a response from ChatGPT3.5 that I played with last year in which I asked it to write a story for me. I got:

"82% Human-generated content. You should edit your text until there's less detectable AI content."

I'm not totally pleased with the site's suggestion to tweak the text until it passes, but it did get things more or less correct. 82% is a failing grade on that site. My hunch is that Laurel tests to a higher standard.

 

[Bazzle]

My biggest "concern" is all these stories getting checked by Ai...is feeding into the Ai database?

 

[samhasstories]

My biggest "concern" is all these stories getting checked by Ai...is feeding into the Ai database?

I think it all is, whether it's getting checked or not. We are the database.

 

[EmilyMiller]

See, this is where the speculation as to what is setting off the system annoys me as someone who's been stuck in the the 9th circle of pending hell for several months.

Everything that is suggested - leaving in mistakes, using colloquialisms in dialogue, leaning into emotion - are all things I've done. From the first submission, to every single one since, I've edited this part to death and cut out anything that I thought read a little on the formal side - a habit I know I have. And yet, here we are, two months since the chapter was first submitted sitting with 6 AI Rejections behind it.

None of us know what's triggering the system or why some of us are flagged up more than others, but when you've done everything recommended and you're still being bounced back, the speculation hurts. It becomes less of a conversation about the system being an issue, and more of the writer being the issue which, as time goes on, is something that does become deep rooted into a persons psyche.

After so many rejections, I've managed to convince myself that the issue isn't the system and that it's me. That my writing, the thing I've been working and developing for years, is the issue. Once that gets in your head, it's impossible to shake.

Speculation can actually be doing more harm than good to those of us who are stuck with this issue.

I feel for you, hun. You seem to be a very acute case. I was merely commenting on eight other data points, all of which had been rejected. My observations don’t necessarily pertain to you.

Emily

 

[PrincessArianrhod]

See, this is where the speculation as to what is setting off the system annoys me as someone who's been stuck in the the 9th circle of pending hell for several months.

If it isn't too forward of me, would you consider sending me one of your rejected stories for perusal? PM me if you're willing and we can sort out how etc.

Out of curiosity, I just tested two of my current drafts on the above posted link, and both came back as 100% human.

 

[EmilyMiller]

If it isn't too forward of me, would you consider sending me one of your rejected stories for perusal? PM me if you're willing and we can sort out how etc.

Out of curiosity, I just tested two of my current drafts on the above posted link, and both came back as 100% human.

I’ve been doing the same, hun.

The problem with trying to help is that you then get accused of being a Lit apologist (not by @Portly_Penguin i should add). People have vented at me, like I can sort out their problems.

Emily

 

[lustychimera]

After so many rejections, I've managed to convince myself that the issue isn't the system and that it's me.

I just read Part 4 of your story. I was wondering if maybe your writing was dry and that was flagging it, but nah, that's definitely not it.

You do have kind of a pulp fictiony prose, where the focus seemed to be on being simple and direct---which is great. It's nearly invisible and let the story itself be the star.

You had minimal transitions. Despite being blunt, the sentences flowed perfectly from one to the next. But when your narrator's reflecting, you add in a touch of flowery spice.

Some of the action beats seemed to be doing a few things at once, too, which is not easy, and certainly not the kind of subtext that AI can recreate.

So it's definitely not you.

 

[PrincessArianrhod]

People have vented at me, like I can sort out their problems.

You can't? But why?? Do better, Emily, honestly.