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

[RejectReality]

The likely glut of AI submissions isn't some kind of get-rich-quick scheme like is happening on Amazon. It's people who want to tell stories, feel they don't have the skills, and see AI as a means to finally construct something they feel is acceptable. I don't see it as malicious.

That doesn't make it any less of a problem.

A category devoted to them would be ignored. Most would dismiss them as garbage from the title of the category alone. Even more would be frustrated by the lack of separation of kinks, making it impossible to find anything they like there, and discovering things that turn them off accidentally. Only a fraction of the submissions dumped in the category would ever get any exposure because the rest would be pushed off page 1 every day. Most wouldn't get many more reads than they would if they were rejected because of this. Not even remotely a solution.

As much as it sucks, people need to get used to the fact that this is the way things are. Cultivate other venues. I've had two others for over a decade now. If something can't be posted here, I lose the benefit of Lit's much larger audience, but it's hardly a waste. I'm established elsewhere, and the story will be read.

It doesn't take long to get established elsewhere if you already have a catalog of stories ready to roll. Release them one or two a week, and you'll quickly gather a following because your name is getting out there constantly.

So cultivate your venues, and then once the AI glut here dies down, bring those stories that are being rejected as likely AI back here and see if you can get a hearing when Laurel isn't being overwhelmed.

 

[ronde]

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.

For me, options 1-3 are all about the same as Little League games where no score is kept and everybody gets a cookie after the game so nobody "loses". People do not learn much from successes or tie scores. They learn from failures by figuring out what went wrong and then changing so they don't make that same mistake again. We writers are no different and it would be a better use of time to objectively evaluate our writing to figure out why the rejection happened. It might be a simple thing like using a Thesaurus instead of just writing in common language. Most AI that I've read seems to use a lot of rather large, intelligent sounding words rather than the relatively simple words most people actually used in daily life.

As for the last categories, those "writers" would be better off if they went somewhere else where they would be more appreciated. Literotica has rules just like an endeavor in life. You either follow the rules, pay the penalty for not following the rules, or go somewhere the rules are different. The rules are the preference of the site owner, not the site user.

 

[dmallord]

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

It's more 'humanly' complicated than that. There is a sense of pride in publishing and belonging.

The rejections are not just first-time writers. They were accepted previously and now feel a part of the 'group.' Along comes AI detectors, and they've fallen prey to its flaws. People who honestly poured their efforts into the next story feel hurt - those who didn't use AI in the first place or used it like Grammarly's original start-up software version. If you didn't use AI, the reasonable expectation is the site should retract the rejection if you affirm you did not. [Lit's AI forum guide says they should declare that - but when some did, it was still rejected.] As noted, no one is getting paid to write erotica and post it on Lit. There is no incentive monetarily, just some notoriety.

After failure to communicate 'effectively,' a number of writers have moved on to other sites.

 

[dmallord]

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.

Censorship – to end hot-button thoughts. What's next, banning books? Oh ... never mind. I'm ahead of myself.

 

[CalebZhass]

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.

Interestinng position. Did you cobsider dling what the rest of the world does with topics they don't care abou? Y'know ignore them?

You shouldn't find it particularly uncharacteristic for people in an author's forum to discuss the hot topic of AI and authorship, especially when it causes all sorts of peoblems for a wide variety of them.