What if the admin(s) were to create a forum entitled something like "Potentially authored by AI?"

[AG31]

but all it would do in fiction is end up in an endless regurgitation of bland, repetitive junk.

I'm pretty sure AI is going to improve at a rapid pace. That's the history of technology.

 

[jhealy55]

I simply applied Occam's razor.
- there is no monetary gain from posting a story on the site, so why bother unless you genuinely want to tell something, I see no reason for random people to just spam AI stories, because it is >0 effort for =0 reward.
- using AI to generate decent stuff is harder than people realize, so a lot less people are doing it than the uninitiated would think.
- the way detection works, it simply flags mundane language. Most people use mundane language, hence the many reports of people being flagged.

There is no need to fabricate a conspiracy, when adding all the things together more than adequately explains the situation.

You have some painful gaps in logic here

I see people putting a lot of effort and time into getting attention on line with zero financial benefit. Maybe you just don't understand their motivation?

And what conspiracy could you possibly derive from my original post?

 

[AG31]

but all it would do in fiction is end up in an endless regurgitation of bland, repetitive junk. Where's the creativity and originality in that? It would only encourage mediocrity, and we've got enough of that already.

Because of the AI topics and a couple of others, I've lately been reading stuff I wouldn't ordinarily read. It seems clear that there are a lot of people in Literotica who just love mediocre, bland repetitive junk. If AI can't produce stuff that's appealing, people will stop going to that category.

 

[jhealy55]

I'm pretty sure AI is going to improve at a rapid pace. That's the history of technology.

not sure that improvement translates into creative fields as well though. microwavable meals might have come a long way, but I'll take an average>good home-cooked meal over anything that's been mass-produced so far.

 

[CalebZhass]

if there's no gain/benefit from posting here, why aren't those getting rejected by moving on and posting elsewhere?

I can only speak for myself (though I wasn't rejected yet, but I might very well be):
- the reason I WANT TO POST here is to give something back. To share. I don't gain anything from it. I don't need appreciation, I have a pretty decent job I'm quite good at, so I already got all the appreciation I need in my life. I simply felt, that after having taken so much, I would be good to try and give some of it back.
- the reason I want to post HERE is because it is Literotica that gave me a lot over the years, not other sites.

I'm sure others have their own reasons, I can only really speak for my own.

 

[jhealy55]

I can only speak for myself (though I wasn't rejected yet, but I might very well be):
- the reason I WANT TO POST here is to give something back. To share. I don't gain anything from it. I don't need appreciation, I have a pretty decent job I am pretty good at, so I get all the appreciation I get in my life. I simply felt, that after having taken so much, I would be good to try and give some of it back.
- the reason I want to post HERE is because it is Literotica that gave me a lot over the years, not other sites.

I'm sure others have their own reasons, I can only really speak for my own.

so you wouldn't hang around telling others how much this site sucks because you had a story rejected, telling other authors you are "done", encouraging others to leave, asking for recommendations of other places writers could migrate too, etc., purely out of gratitude for all the site has done for you?

I can respect that.

Others who don't uphold that standard...not so much.

 

[CalebZhass]

You have some painful gaps in logic here

I see people putting a lot of effort and time into getting attention on line with zero financial benefit. Maybe you just don't understand their motivation?

And what conspiracy could you possibly derive from my original post?

I've been a computer gamer all my life. Have been playing all sorts of games over the internet in competitive and non competitive fields. I think I understand the motivation of a cheater quite well. They get off on one of two things:
- upsetting order, as in: pushing to the top, just so others cannot be there. killing people in games just to mess with them, etc.
- gain fame: become the best (or better) at something without putting in the effort.

Here is the thing: the AI gives you none of those. I mean sure, you can dump tons of stories onto the site, but you will never be top rated with an AI written piece, its just bland and uninspiring.

Same goes for fame: if you cannot reach the top, then what fame will you gain? the most mediocre author on the site? C'mon.

I can see AI used in places where there is something to gain, selling works for money, etc. But here? Nope.

I genuinely believe, that there has been exactly 0 submissions written purely by the AI and published by someone to be featured on the site for selfish reasons.

Now I believe there might have been people, who had ideas of their own they wanted to share and figured the AI would be a good way of writing a story for them, in which they can share those ideas. These I still consider cheaters, but in reality they are not motivated by selfishness or malice, they simply don't know better.

 

[CalebZhass]

so you wouldn't hang around telling others how much this site sucks because you had a story rejected, telling other authors you are "done", encouraging others to leave, asking for recommendations of other places writers could migrate too, etc., purely out of gratitude for all the site has done for you?

I can respect that.

Others who don't uphold that standard...not so much.

I never said that. I don't fancy big dramatic announcements of leaving, though I understand the emotions behind them. If you had a lot invested, if you cared, then felt betrayed, you might feel the need of telling the one who betrayed you how much you are hurt by it.

Also, if lit refuses to publish my work, then I guess the world will have to live without my genius My only regret would be the many semi-wasted hours my lovely editor spent on making me sound less of an engineer. I say semi-wasted, as her work inspired me a great deal and seeing her suggestions has opened my eyes to some of my faults.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm pretty sure AI is going to improve at a rapid pace. That's the history of technology.

I agree, and eventually, some good art will come of it.

But for every Ansel Adams' photograph, there are a thousand photos of someone's food. I know which one is art .

 

[jhealy55]

I don't think that they believe that they are 'cheaters' in the sense that you apply it to gaming. I don't think they are trying to win contests, etc.

They want something: attention, interaction, fame? who knows. honestly don't care. If you want to participate in a particular activity, then abide by the rules of the organizer or start your own event

As I've said, I've seen people doing a whole lot of inexplicable things to get attention online, often at their own expense in time and resources. I'm not really concerned with their motivation. I just don't want to have to walk around their guerrilla photo shoot on the subway platform or listen to them narrate their avocado toast reaction post one table over.

 

[CalebZhass]

I don't think that they believe that they are 'cheaters' in the sense that you apply it to gaming. I don't think they are trying to win contests, etc.

They want something: attention, interaction, fame? who knows. honestly don't care. If you want to participate in a particular activity

As I've said, I've seen people doing a whole lot of inexplicable things to get attention online, often at their own expense in time and resources. I'm not really concerned with their motivation. I just don't want to have to walk around their guerrilla photo shoot on the subway platform or listen to them narrate their avocado reaction post one table over.

That's what motivates cheaters on the online space: the drive for attention, interaction and fame. My point is, posting AI stories is just not going to cut it for that. Much easier ways to gain it on reddit, with much less work

 

[jhealy55]

That's what motivates cheaters on the online space: the drive for attention, interaction and fame. My point is, posting AI stories is just not going to cut it for that. Much easier ways to gain it on reddit, with much less work

not if what you crave is attention from this particular audience, which the site has worked a long time to create and maintain.

face it. that's the real reason some of these folks are hanging around and reacting so negatively, rather than moving on to a new site

they value the attention and audience this space receives, but they don't respect that rules that make it what it is.

 

[CalebZhass]

not if what you crave is attention from this particular audience, which the site has worked a long time to create and maintain.

face it. that's the real reason some of these folks are hanging around and reacting so negatively, rather than moving on to a new site

they value the attention and audience this space receives, but they don't respect that rules that make it what it is.

You are right of course, that is a possibility.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It would be as simple as using either or on the initial post as a vote, so no, tallying opinions would not be too difficult and anyone could freely change their minds during the discussion if they are convinced.

That would be prone to alt abuse, though. Presumably if somebody's planning to break the rules on AI, they're not going to be too particular about the integrity of the voting process. So then we get into argument over who's a legitimate voter...

I don't necessarily find this a bad idea (in an idealized world), but I am also not sure it would not just devolve into a witch hunt, with people falsely accused based on their style and desperately trying to prove that, no.. it's not the AI.. it is them being "this bad".

Almost certainly.

 

[awriterssojourn]

Numerous examples have been given in recent weeks, clearly proving that the "AI detection system" is as effective as exorcism. And yet, here you are again, a professional editor, with ice-cold arrogance, blaming the victims for being "possessed." Your lack of sympathy has nothing to do with AI.

The overall discussion about AI and detection has been atrocious. Plenty of people have posted about it, but there’s an abundance of evidence that resources to detect AI are near useless. My favorite part though has been watching people argue that using Grammarly is the equivalent of academic dishonestly on a free erotica site while universities routinely provide it for students.

 

[alohadave]

Would that also fall on the Lit organization or could Laurel hold that the onus is on the author and not the site to defend the claim?

Generally, Safe Harbour provisions of DMCA (US law/jurisdiction) means that if the site takes down the reported content when notified, they aren't held liable for what users upload.

Sites aren't expected to be able to verify the copyright status.

The important thing is to promptly respond to claims.

 

[jaF0]

I think it's tuime they go the other way and completely block all references to the term. Ban it from the forums completely. I see at least six threads just on the first page of this section.

 

[djrip]

Does anyone honestly know what the Anti-AI Rejection Crowd is requesting and why? Even though they get lumped together as being one side of the argument, it feels like it's a pretty mixed bag from where I stand.

My sense is that someone who asks,"show me all the criteria/tools used to evaluate and reject AI." is right up there with someone in the Tour De France asking for a complete breakdown of which substances are tested for and what the threshold value is for being DQ'd. I think the answer is, "don't use any."

It is honestly hard for me to tell which % are truly blindsided by the accusation vs. those who are mad at getting caught vs. those that use a variety of 'tools' but don't think it qualifies as "AI". Given those that are pushing writing aids to college students and those taking their first jobs out of school, I think there may be many who feel like it's widely acceptable in academic and commercial settings, why not at a creative writing site?

I alos think that part of what hampers a lot of people from being sympathetic is that while we all genuinely feel for anyone who is being unfairly rejected, looking at a few of the arguments in the threads, the positions tend to vary along a spectrum of:

- I don't like AI. I don't use AI. I don't want it on the site. Just trying to get my submissions through.
- I don't like AI. I don't use AI. I don't care if others use it. Just want to get rid of the filters in order to get my submissions through.
- I use a little AI to help with editing. I just want a looser setting on the filter so my stuff goes through, even if those using higher AI content get blocked
- Only dinosaurs are not using AI. I don't use it very much, but have no objections if others do. Let's get with the times and stop pretending we're Amish.
- I don't enjoy the writing process without AI, so just quit blocking it. Readers like my stuff even if it's heavily machine produced/edited. Live with it and stop rejecting my stuff!....BRO!
- ANARCHYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

I'm very sympathetic to the first position. Understand the second, but think it's a little selfish to ask to open the floodgates for any one person (we're not executing people so the one innocent man argument doesn't wash for me). I have little to no sympathy for the third position and I'm trending toward hostility the further we get down that list.

Where you're going wrong is in thinking that there is some relationship between if one uses AI, or how much one uses AI, and whether or not one gets flagged for using AI by the detectors. There is not.

To answer your questions, the vast majority including myself seem to be in positions 1 and 2. Position 3 is not about loosening the restrictions so tool users can get through. Because use of tools has no consistent effect on detectors. Rather, position 3 is a philosophical one - is tool use allowed or not, does one think it should be or not, which tools specifically, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable usage. And I've seen maybe one or two people with positions 4 and 5.

 

[awriterssojourn]

Where you're going wrong is in thinking that there is some relationship between if one uses AI, or how much one uses AI, and whether or not one gets flagged for using AI by the detectors. There is not.

To answer your questions, the vast majority including myself seem to be in positions 1 and 2. Position 3 is not about loosening the restrictions so tool users can get through. Because use of tools has no consistent effect on detectors. Rather, position 3 is a philosophical one - is tool use allowed or not, does one think it should be or not, which tools specifically, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable usage. And I've seen maybe one or two people with positions 4 and 5.

This is too reasonable of a response.
Have we considered that this entire discussion revolving around writing tools like Grammarly (not talking about their generative AI), etc, is unhinged? The other day a post on this forum said that the most used word on the website is "cock", but we're discussing if we should be more stringent in our writing processes than Yale Law School? They provide premium Grammarly to their students. I think that means they might be okay with it. I included the link at the bottom with a few other universities that also provide it. Feel free to question your sanity while everyone debates if we should let software suggest we mix it up and use shaft or dick every once and awhile or if you have to think of those words yourself to be a real writer.

https://grammarly.engl.iastate.edu/
https://gradschool.utah.edu/resources-hub/grammarly/index.php
https://www.fullerton.edu/it/students/software/grammarly/
https://helpdeskplus.web.baylor.edu/grammarly
https://teaching.unl.edu/using-grammarly-improve-student-writing-0/
https://gradschool.wsu.edu/pdi/grammarly-edu-student-memberships/
https://help.illinoisstate.edu/technology/support-topics/campus-applications-and-websites/grammarly
https://library.jefferson.edu/libra...remium-version-available-for-jefferson-users/
https://ccit.clemson.edu/support/faculty-staff/software/grammarly-premium/
https://law.yale.edu/information-technology-services/communication-and-collaboration/grammarly

 

[ronde]

Generally, Safe Harbour provisions of DMCA (US law/jurisdiction) means that if the site takes down the reported content when notified, they aren't held liable for what users upload.

Sites aren't expected to be able to verify the copyright status.

The important thing is to promptly respond to claims.

This is true for the US, but it's not true for the EU. There, a site is responsible for publishing copyrighted content without compensation to the original author, and can be held liable in civil court. The law applies to any generated content such a the written word, art work, and even computer software and since Literotica is available world wide, it would fall under this law. Implementation varies by country though.

 

[SimonDoom]

No, actually, you do not. The AI were trained on text written by real humans and are much better at that than you
You are writing unlike the common folk, which is cool and all, but saying its "real human" completely ignores the whole irony of the situation, where we built machines to mimic us, then other machines to detect if machines are used instead of our own effort and then we now complain that our own effort is detected as something done by a machine.

I see why you feel the way you do, it is a feeling of inequality, I get it. It is fine, I don't want to change your mind. Just pointing out that your style is likely not "real human" if its not caught by the detectors At least not "common real human"

"Real human" and "common real human" are two totally different things. I think what makes us human is our ability to be different and individual. To be unique. A writing process that is based on assembling the common denominator aspects of multiple people's writings does not strike me as in any meaningful sense "real human." It sounds inhuman to me. But we may just have to disagree about that.

The Site seems to have made clear where it comes down on this, and it has the final say over what it does here. I'm not technically savvy enough about AI and AI detectors to have an opinion about it, but if the Site wants to limit people offering stories that are substantially generated by AI, then I support that. And if to do that it has to use filters that are sometimes overbroad and give rise to false positives, then it has a right to do that too, and authors may have to adapt by taking extra steps NOT to make their stories sound like they are generated by AI. From the Site's point of view, that may not be a bad thing.

 

[SimonDoom]

Numerous examples have been given in recent weeks, clearly proving that the "AI detection system" is as effective as exorcism. And yet, here you are again, a professional editor, with ice-cold arrogance, blaming the victims for being "possessed." Your lack of sympathy has nothing to do with AI.

I'm not a professional editor. Let's get that clear.

I don't lack sympathy for authors who are having their stories rejected because of false positives in these detection systems. I don't know enough to have an opinion on the accuracy of the detection systems, and I'm not inclined to give too much weight to the opinions given in this forum one way or another because of the manifest bias we all have on this subject.

But it seems like at this point we may have a choice: abandon detection systems and give authors carte blanche to submit stories substantially generated by AI, or maintain a detection system that has a high risk of false positives and impose a greater burden on authors to do what they have to so they avoid getting tripped up by the detectors.

I'm not willing to accept option 1, because I think it's creatively wrong. I think the Site has a legitimate interest in taking reasonable steps to make sure the stories published here are truly people-generated stories. But if the detectors really don't work, and if the cost for a wrongly accused author is too high to prove innocence and get the story published, then option 1 might be the only workable one. I'm not technically qualified to say. But I AM willing to defer to the Site's judgment on this issue and to accept the idea that henceforth authors may have more of a burden to show affirmatively that their stories are not AI-generated before being published.

 

[alohadave]

But I AM willing to defer to the Site's judgment on this issue and to accept the idea that henceforth authors may have more of a burden to show affirmatively that their stories are not AI-generated before being published.

If the site would communicate what that additional burden entails, then we could move on. Until then we are all screaming in the dark looking for any kind of response that isn't a vague, unhelpful stock response.

 

[SimonDoom]

If the site would communicate what that additional burden entails, then we could move on. Until then we are all screaming in the dark looking for any kind of response that isn't a vague, unhelpful stock response.

This is very, very true. Nobody can dispute that transparency and prompt communication are not, to say the least, the Site's strengths.

 

[ronde]

"Real human" and "common real human" are two totally different things. I think what makes us human is our ability to be different and individual. To be unique. A writing process that is based on assembling the common denominator aspects of multiple people's writings does not strike me as in any meaningful sense "real human." It sounds inhuman to me. But we may just have to disagree about that.

The Site seems to have made clear where it comes down on this, and it has the final say over what it does here. I'm not technically savvy enough about AI and AI detectors to have an opinion about it, but if the Site wants to limit people offering stories that are substantially generated by AI, then I support that. And if to do that it has to use filters that are sometimes overbroad and give rise to false positives, then it has a right to do that too, and authors may have to adapt by taking extra steps NOT to make their stories sound like they are generated by AI. From the Site's point of view, that may not be a bad thing.

All AI is, is software that can quickly sort through an enormous amount of data and regurgitate that data in the format requested by the user. It can not suddenly decide to become a best-selling author or poet. The difference is what goes by the ambiguous description called "creativity". AI can generate a story or even a novel based upon the request made by other writings and then fitting bits and pieces of the style of those writings into text.

The basic plot of every story you'll ever read has been in existence for at least since the start of recorded history. The difference between a novel that ends up on the shelf of the local Dollar Tree and the novel that makes the NYT Best Seller list is the author's characters and his or her twists and turns to an age-old plot. That is creativity and the difference between anything AI can generate and a legitimate work of literature.