Story returned citing AI and instructing that I find an editor to review

[krystalg]

Hello everyone;

I recently submitted a story for publication that was returned asking me if it was AI-generated and instructing me to resubmit after I had a volunteer editor take a look at it. I did run it through Grammarly to check for spelling errors—as I often invert letters when typing and tend to miss them, occasionally, when I self-edit—but the writing is 100% mine. How do I proceed?
Thank you for your time and advice
K

 

[Bamagan]

Hello everyone;

I recently submitted a story for publication that was returned asking me if it was AI-generated and instructing me to resubmit after I had a volunteer editor take a look at it. I did run it through Grammarly to check for spelling errors—as I often invert letters when typing and tend to miss them, occasionally, when I self-edit—but the writing is 100% mine. How do I proceed?
Thank you for your time and advice
K

There are a lot of threads in the Author's Hangout on this topic, although they tend to get very repetitive.

The main thing you should do is resubmit with a note to the editor saying you didn't use AI, and possibly a brief description of your editing process. You might want to verify that your editing software is not 'autocorrecting' your sentences and words more than it needs to. Many such programs now include AI 'assistants' that are somewhat overzealous, so it might be taking liberties with your text that could potentially trigger whatever system Lit uses to try detecting machine-generated work.

If you get rejected a second time for AI, you might consider contacting Laurel here in the forums via direct message and explaining the situation, in case your stuff is getting screened out automatically, even with the note to the editor. She likely won't respond, but she may review the matter.

It is probably not worth the time and effort to use free AI detectors. If we knew what Lit was using it might be worthwhile to test against that one (or those ones). But they likely won't reveal that, because it would also make it much easier to trick the system.

Good luck!

 

[Nightscream89]

Grammarly uses A.I. to adjust your sentences.
I've seen a lot of people post here that they are flagged for A.I. use when using grammarly.

So I think Grammarly is the problem, although I don't know for sure.

Personally I write in google documents since it has a spelling and grammar check that works fine for me personally. You do have to adjust a bit more yourself than with grammarly, but none of my stories was ever flagged as A.I.

(I also like the fact that google docs saves the work in real time online, so accessable anywhere and it's always saved.)

 

[ElectricBlue]

Grammarly uses A.I. to adjust your sentences.
I've seen a lot of people post here that they are flagged for A.I. use when using grammarly.

So I think Grammarly is the problem, although I don't know for sure.

It's a common issue when folk report AI rejections, yes. Generally speaking, accepting Grammarly suggestions in fiction results in a very bland, dull style which tends to trip AI detectors.

 

[Todger65]

Grammarly is generally fine as long as you ignore most of it suggested sentence re-writes. Just mainly use it for spell and grammar checks, but again don’t blindly accept all its suggestions. It can never make its mind up whether it’s or its is correct. It always suggests to opposite to the one typed.

 

[FidelityBoss]

Hello everyone;

I recently submitted a story for publication that was returned asking me if it was AI-generated and instructing me to resubmit after I had a volunteer editor take a look at it. I did run it through Grammarly to check for spelling errors—as I often invert letters when typing and tend to miss them, occasionally, when I self-edit—but the writing is 100% mine. How do I proceed?
Thank you for your time and advice
K

It sounds like the publication might be overly cautious about AI-generated content. Since you’ve already clarified it’s your original work, I’d suggest reaching out to them directly and explaining your process (including Grammarly use). If they still insist on a volunteer editor, maybe ask if they can recommend one or connect you with someone. Alternatively, you could have a trusted writer friend or beta reader review it and vouch for its authenticity.

 

[krystalg]

Thanks, everyone.
I only use Grammarly as a spell-checker, because I tend to invert letters when I type and sometimes miss that when I self-edit—as we all tend to see what we intended rather than what we actually wrote when we edit ourselves. Honestly, the "grammar-correcting" and "auto rewrite" suggestions are, I feel, quite substandard, so I habitually ignore them.

Having reached out to multiple volunteer editors and receiving no replies, I've followed everyone's advice and resubmitted, highlighting exactly how and why I've used Grammarly.

I appreciate the help.

 

[Comentarista82]

I can look it over if you can get it to me, as I'm free.

add: you'll have to DM me or activate that feature, since it appears you have it off.

 

[krystalg]

I can look it over if you can get it to me, as I'm free.

add: you'll have to DM me or activate that feature, since it appears you have it off.

Thank you so much, Comentarista82, and thank you for the heads-up about the DMs. I sent it along to you, and I appreciate it very, very much.
K

 

[Comentarista82]

Thank you so much, Comentarista82, and thank you for the heads-up about the DMs. I sent it along to you, and I appreciate it very, very much.
K

Got it. Just check DM for one more thing and I'll start after that reply.

 

[krystalg]

Thank you, Comentarista82.

 

[SkyBubble]

Hello everyone;

I recently submitted a story for publication that was returned asking me if it was AI-generated and instructing me to resubmit after I had a volunteer editor take a look at it. I did run it through Grammarly to check for spelling errors—as I often invert letters when typing and tend to miss them, occasionally, when I self-edit—but the writing is 100% mine. How do I proceed?
Thank you for your time and advice
K

I hear you on that. I cannot type the to save my life. It's always either hte or teh.

I have also had 2 stories that were 100% human written returned, claiming they were AI. I had to submit one of them FOUR TIMES!!! It was irritating. But both stories finally got posted. It's just an annoyance.

 

[SkyBubble]

whatever system Lit uses to try detecting machine-generated work.

Most likely Originality.ai or Copyleaks.

 

[alsith]

I'm seeing this a bit. I'm part of an authors group where, while not an author myself I help several authors who are helping each other (Myself with proof reading and general checking for consistency etc). There was one story recently rejected for being AI written that I have personally witnessed being developed, feed backed, re-developed etc over the course of, at this point I think about 2 months. (This particular one by one of the Quaranteam spin-off authors, the "Project RED" UK spin-off.
The amusing thing about this one is that particular author doesn't even run the most BASIC of tools beyond a built-in spell checker on his writing software. Yet it's been rejected as AI with basically a note saying "don't bother re-submitting it".
There is a theory being tossed around that using Emdashes gets something flagged as AI. I HOPE this isn't true as that would be sad as fck.

Anyway hope either lit stops using some AI tool to detect AI. (Which is what it feels like at the moment). Or it gets a BETTER AI tool to detect AI. Because this story I can 100% tell you was NOT written with ai.

 

[SkyBubble]

I'm seeing this a bit. I'm part of an authors group where, while not an author myself I help several authors who are helping each other (Myself with proof reading and general checking for consistency etc). There was one story recently rejected for being AI written that I have personally witnessed being developed, feed backed, re-developed etc over the course of, at this point I think about 2 months. (This particular one by one of the Quaranteam spin-off authors, the "Project RED" UK spin-off.
The amusing thing about this one is that particular author doesn't even run the most BASIC of tools beyond a built-in spell checker on his writing software. Yet it's been rejected as AI with basically a note saying "don't bother re-submitting it".
There is a theory being tossed around that using Emdashes gets something flagged as AI. I HOPE this isn't true as that would be sad as fck.

Anyway hope either lit stops using some AI tool to detect AI. (Which is what it feels like at the moment). Or it gets a BETTER AI tool to detect AI. Because this story I can 100% tell you was NOT written with ai.

Does not surprise me in the least -- whatever system they're using is hypersensitive.

I've had that happen with two of my stories. I had to submit one of them FOUR TIMES!!!! Spent way more time on it than I had to spend.

 

[ronde]

Hello everyone;

I recently submitted a story for publication that was returned asking me if it was AI-generated and instructing me to resubmit after I had a volunteer editor take a look at it. I did run it through Grammarly to check for spelling errors—as I often invert letters when typing and tend to miss them, occasionally, when I self-edit—but the writing is 100% mine. How do I proceed?
Thank you for your time and advice
K

The statement in the rejection notice about using a volunteer editor is just boilerplate that is in every rejection notice for anything. I think it's just put there to give authors another path if they don't understand the rejection. You do not have to have a volunteer editor look at your story before re-submitting. You just have to correct the issue that caused the rejection.

I only write in Word and I pay attention to the spelling suggestions Word makes but ignore most of the grammar suggestions. Most grammar checkers, Word included, are written for business correspondence, not for fiction. A couple of the tip-offs are the use of lesser used synonyms in place of commonly used words and changing passive voice to active voice. Fiction should read like real people talk every day, not like a presentation prepared for a business meeting or a report.

 

[SkyBubble]

I've had that happen with two stories -- falsely flagged.

 

[SkyBubble]

A couple of the tip-offs are the use of lesser used synonyms in place of commonly used words and changing passive voice to active voice.

Taht will or won't trip the AI detectors?

 

[SkyBubble]

Thanks, everyone.
I only use Grammarly as a spell-checker, because I tend to invert letters when I type and sometimes miss that when I self-edit—as we all tend to see what we intended rather than what we actually wrote when we edit ourselves. Honestly, the "grammar-correcting" and "auto rewrite" suggestions are, I feel, quite substandard, so I habitually ignore them.

Having reached out to multiple volunteer editors and receiving no replies, I've followed everyone's advice and resubmitted, highlighting exactly how and why I've used Grammarly.

I appreciate the help.

I have trouble typing the word the. My fingers just don't want to type those letters in that order. So I always use built-in spell checkers to find errors. I still find stupid little mistakes like forgetting to close quotes in my stories years later.

 

[Alfred_4younger]

The thing that I find ironic and funny about this whole thing and went down a rabbit hole of research is: the tools used to detect ai are also ai tools. So that means in trying to detect ai things and people saying ai has no uses, they actually are using it. And then the rabbit hole led to people using AI to write and then AI to check to see if it looked like AI and then using another AI to change it to look human-ish. To that way leads madness.

 

[AwkwardMD]

The thing that I find ironic and funny about this whole thing and went down a rabbit hole of research is: the tools used to detect ai are also ai tools. So that means in trying to detect ai things and people saying ai has no uses, they actually are using it. And then the rabbit hole led to people using AI to write and then AI to check to see if it looked like AI and then using another AI to change it to look human-ish. To that way leads madness.

You are making assumptions.

 

[StillStunned]

The thing that I find ironic and funny about this whole thing and went down a rabbit hole of research is: the tools used to detect ai are also ai tools. So that means in trying to detect ai things and people saying ai has no uses, they actually are using it. And then the rabbit hole led to people using AI to write and then AI to check to see if it looked like AI and then using another AI to change it to look human-ish. To that way leads madness.

I get the feeling that Laurel has a pretty good sense of what's AI-written and what isn't. No tools required.

By all accounts, Laurel checks 200-250 submissions every day. I only see the occasional fragment here and there, and I can generally make a pretty accurate guess.

 

[SkyBubble]

Hello everyone;

I recently submitted a story for publication that was returned asking me if it was AI-generated and instructing me to resubmit after I had a volunteer editor take a look at it. I did run it through Grammarly to check for spelling errors—as I often invert letters when typing and tend to miss them, occasionally, when I self-edit—but the writing is 100% mine. How do I proceed?
Thank you for your time and advice
K

So some AI accused you of using other AI?

 

[SkyBubble]

I've had that happen with two stories -- falsely flagged.

Three now.

 

[Alfred_4younger]

You are making assumptions.

It was not an assumption. I'm just speaking in general about the things I learned when researched. I'm not saying that I know literotica's process.