Resubmitted My Story After It Was Sent Back as AI Work — Seeking Clarity & Support

[ElectricBlue]

Yes, I know... but the thing is, I'm not a professional writer, I don't have the time or the creative patience to sit down and write out my story in full the way I'd like to... I've had some vanilla story ideas for years that I would love to see written out in full, but it just hasn't happened - I don't have the time. So in recent days, I've been experimenting with AI, giving it my prompts and working with it 'collaboratively', it's been an interesting process. I'm not aiming to pass it off as my own work, if anything, the intention was to present the finished work, and then, separately, to demonstrate how I went through the writing process, and where and how I used AI. If I can't do that on Literotica, it's a disappointment, but I'll have to find somewhere else to publish it.

If you can spend time figuring out prompts, surely you can spend time writing? You learn to be a better writer by writing more, not by playing with AI. It's not "collaborating", it's giving you a word prediction based on all of the content it's been trained on. It's a foolish way to start "writing".

If you really want to write, you write. It really is that simple.

 

[RagnarHairyBreeches]

I've never really tried any of the AI software, but of the results I've seen (ie. other people trying what you're trying to do) is that the result is not particularly good. If time is an issue you might consider dictation.

I once read of someone going for a morning walk in a quiet place with their tape recorder. Presumably, their story had been very well worked out in their mind. When home, their taped story was transferred to the computer and with one of those voice to text programs they had a document created. Something to consider.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Amazon doesn't care how the work was generated, they just want you to confess to using AI. However, should they change their minds, and you've proudly displayed to them you used AI, they can yank it in a heartbeat. That other site, SOL, allows you to use AI but again you must admit to it during the submission process. SOL is a free site and probably second only to Literotica for readers and writers. And I suppose if the AI is good enough to fool any AI checker you can get away with not declaring it until you can't.

I'm sorry if this question has been asked a million times before - but is any AI use permitted? I'm not intending to enter my work into a contest or any such thing, I'm not a professional writer, I've had a few story ideas sitting around for several years, never had the time to write them out as I would want to, but now, thanks to AI, I thought I might give it a go - not by using AI to write the whole story, but using it to edit and polish my work, etc. Is that not allowed on Literotica?

If not here at Literotica, then... is there anywhere else online I could post such work - not entirely AI generated - far from it, but work that used a certain amount of AI in its preparation (and makes that clear)?

 

[SkyBubble]

Hi everyone,
Just wanted to share something I recently went through and hopefully get some support or guidance.
The third part of my ongoing series was recently sent back with the label “AI work,” even though I wrote every word myself. I’ve been building this story slowly, and the feedback from earlier parts has been encouraging. So this was honestly quite disheartening.

To make things clear:
1. I do not use AI to write my stories. I only use the free version of Grammarly for basic grammar and typo checks, which, as I understand, falls well within Lit’s fair use policy.
2. I’ve also been actively seeking help. I first posted on the Lit forum for editing feedback, also contacted a few editors from Lit’s official editor list, and reached out via Discord and Reddit to improve consistency and flow like any learning writer would.
3. I even sent a PM to Laurel with screenshots of Google Chat proving my edits and conversations happened before submission.

I did not submit a new story; I simply resubmitted the same sent-back version in a new Word file, with a short explanation and minor edits (grammar, phrasing, and flow)

I fully understand the need for moderation and caution around AI content, and I respect the team’s role. My only hope is to make sure genuine writers don’t get discouraged or mislabeled, especially when we’re openly asking for help and trying to improve.


So I’m asking:

• Has anyone else faced this kind of situation?
• What can I do next if the story is flagged again despite my efforts?
• Any Advice or comments from fellow authors ?

Sorry that happened to you; it's happened to a number of us.

The AI detectors claim 98% accuracy. While very good, that's still 2% inaccuracy.

Now, Lit reportedly gets around 200 submissions a day. No human can read 200 submissions a day. Not even Laurel. So they use a 98% accurate AI detector.

But at 200 submissions a day, that's 4 per day misidentified -- either AI writing that somehow sneaks through as "human" or human writing that gets mislabeled as AI, as in your case. Let's say it's half and half for purposes of this discussion.

That would be 2 stories every day written by humans 100% that get sent back as AI. That's 730 a year (732 in a leap year.) That's a problem. I don't pretend to know how to solve it, but it remains a problem.

So yes, others have faced the same situation.

There are certain traits AI detectors look for and flag. If you know those traits, you can do a better job of avoiding them. I'm not suggesting that you specifically write to avoid the detectors. That would dilute your voice. But I am saying that certain human quirks can reduce your chances of being flagged.

 

[SkyBubble]

I only use the free version of Grammarly for basic grammar and typo checks

I'm told that even Grammarly can leave "AI marks."

 

[SkyBubble]

Try saving your content as a .txt or .rtf file, and copy paste into the submission form's text box. No guarantee, but it might work.

I've heard that also.

 

[MillieDynamite]

They aren't looking at marks; they are looking at sentence structure, word usage, and how things are phrased. AI doesn't have watermarks in the writing. What it has is tendencies and habits that are consistent. Favorite words, phrases, and repetitions of those things that checkers look for. And Literotic has a low tolerance for any indication of artificial intelligence. I'd say they'll reject anything that has more than a 4% chance of being generated by AI. Grammarly has a tendency to switch words around in ways that aren't natural, so that's a dead bang on for the checker to say, Hey, that ain't human.

I've heard that also.

I'm told that even Grammarly can leave "AI marks."

 

[Voboy]

To be honest, I find it disheartening that a site makes it so difficult for writers to share their work because of overbroad policies.

It's far, far from difficult for us to share our work here. AI rejections are not a massive problem on Lit. The site posts a couple hundred stories a day; we've heard of probably around 50 rejections TOTAL among people who bothered coming to the AH and asking about it over the past year or so.

That's a tiny minority. The overwhelming majority of writers clearly have no trouble getting published here.

 

[RagnarHairyBreeches]

It could be that if you haven't time to write then writing is not for you. You might find that the amount of time you spend editing the AI version is just as time consuming had you done it entirely on your own. And at the end of which, will you be able to sit back and reflect on your effort and feel pride? Sure, there will be a story to be published, but how much satisfaction will it provide? Will you honestly be able to call yourself an author?

You also seem to be ignoring an important reason for writing. It's a pleasurable pursuit. Writing allows you to create a world around yourself. To be immersed in it, and to live there in your mind. When I write, I feel myself being absorbed into the exiting, thrilling, environment of my story. I live two lives when I'm writing. My real life, and the world I have created in my story. If you employ AI you will miss out on that. You'll be missing a lot.

 

[RejectReality]

Pause for a moment to consider that how we write comes from what we consume. People coming up right now are and have been absolutely drowned in AI-generated crap-flap for a few years now. It's the filler text on every website. It's the bulk of the news stories. It's dumped into social media posts. It's become the go-to for content mills on youtube and tick-tock ( or however that's spelled )

People are picking this up by osmosis. Plenty are undoubtedly running afoul of the LLMs that are enabled by default in every fucking thing nowadays, but I wager a lot of these first-timers actually are using their own words. The problem is those words are influenced by the deluge of AI they're exposed to at every turn. Why wouldn't they be upset when they get a rejection as if they'd just typed in a prompt "write me a horny story about a brother and sister fucking" and copy-pasted what it upchucked in response? They know they didn't do that. If they're wittingly or unwittingly letting AI rewrite sentences and passages, what it's spitting back at them matches what they're consuming. Unless they're just hitting "yes to all", they're looking at it, and it looks good to them. It's still their words — just polished as far at they're concerned.

I don't see how "Get Good" is a helpful response either. They're getting roadblocked where those of use from bygone eras weren't. What we cringe at now before we "got good" still got published. They're not getting that opportunity and the feedback that comes with it. They're just getting kicked in the nuts, kicked to the curb, and mocked as cheating hacks all along the way.

 

[SkyBubble]

AI rejections are not a massive problem on Lit.

As I noted earlier, somewhere around 730 stories a year or so falsely flagged as AI. You may not consider that a problem, but to others, it definitely looks like one.

 

[ElectricBlue]

As I noted earlier, somewhere around 730 stories a year or so falsely flagged as AI. You may not consider that a problem, but to others, it definitely looks like one.

Where does that statistic come from?

 

[erotica_n_s]

It could be that if you haven't time to write then writing is not for you. You might find that the amount of time you spend editing the AI version is just as time consuming had you done it entirely on your own. And at the end of which, will you be able to sit back and reflect on your effort and feel pride? Sure, there will be a story to be published, but how much satisfaction will it provide? Will you honestly be able to call yourself an author?

You also seem to be ignoring an important reason for writing. It's a pleasurable pursuit. Writing allows you to create a world around yourself. To be immersed in it, and to live there in your mind. When I write, I feel myself being absorbed into the exiting, thrilling, environment of my story. I live two lives when I'm writing. My real life, and the world I have created in my story. If you employ AI you will miss out on that. You'll be missing a lot.

Yes, I'm not a professional writer, am never going to be.

I'm not looking to get paid for my 'writing', I'm not expecting to make any money out of it at all.

I'm not going to submit my 'work' to any contest or competition or whatever.

I intend to be completely open/honest in acknowledging my use of AI.

Yes indeed, I agree, writing is a pleasurable pursuit - of course it is. But that's the problem, it's easy for me to get sucked in and spend way too much time on the minute details - precisely because I like to add "realism" to my stories. It used to be, e.g., if my characters were in a hotel room, then I'd find myself trying to describe every little detail of the hotel room - what colour are the curtains? What furniture do they have in there? etc. And I'd get stuck.

Okay, sure, I'll keep asking for help here on Literotica. But one difficulty I have is, I write "ethnic" erotica (often interracials - Caucasian dudes with South Asian women) - and maybe most folks here can't relate to that particular sensibility.

But my main aim in writing erotica is to share my sexual fantasies with the world. To create a world in which the fantasies "happened". And hoping that somebody, somewhere, might also find my fantasies sexually arousing.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Where does that statistic come from?

He said that he read somewhere that AI-detection algorithms are 98% accurate, which in my opinion is generous. Still, even if we accept that percentage, that means that four submissions every day will get falsely flagged (assuming the average of 200 daily stories). I also assume he attributed two of those four to be AI-written that were flagged as human and then published on Lit, and two to be human-written but falsely flagged as AI and thus rejected. 2x365=730 per year.

The math isn't that solid, but it stands to reason that with 200+ daily submissions that must pass the scrutiny of Laurel's algorithm, at least a couple will be falsely flagged. Either way, that's considerably more than what some people here incorrectly guessed about the number of such cases, which was based only on the perception of the number of authors who sought help in the AH.
We always say how AH is a tiny bit of authorship of Lit. Then it makes sense that those who come to seek help in the AH, after their work was flagged as AI, are also just a small part of AI-rejected authors.

 

[ElectricBlue]

We always say how AH is a tiny bit of authorship of Lit. Then it makes sense that those who come to seek help in the AH, after their work was flagged as AI, are also just a small part of AI-rejected authors.

That's true, that the AH is not representative.

Skybubble's estimate has no validity whatsoever, yet it's being cited as a "fact". Urban myth, more like, just like the yarn of the killer on the roof of the car.

The short answer is no-one but Laurel knows how many stories she rejects as possible AI, and absolutely no-one here knows how many are falsely flagged.

 

[onehitwanda]

just like the yarn of the killer on the roof of the car.

Better than the yam of the killer, at least.

 

[StillStunned]

He said that he read somewhere that AI-detection algorithms are 98% accurate, which in my opinion is generous. Still, even if we accept that percentage, that means that four submissions every day will get falsely flagged (assuming the average of 200 daily stories). I also assume he attributed two of those four to be AI-written that were flagged as human and then published on Lit, and two to be human-written but falsely flagged as AI and thus rejected. 2x365=730 per year.

This is all based on the assumption that about 200 stories are submitted every day, based on about 200 stories being published. About 18 months ago someone mentioned that Laurel had said she got 250 submissions every day, and at the time there were 175 stories published. That's 75 stories being rejected every day.

With Lit taking such a firm and active stance against AI, I think it's fair to assume that the site it keeping out a flood of slop. Is it still 75 per day? Is it 750 per day? The thing is, it takes virtually no effort and no time to let AI write a story for you to submit. I'd like to think that anyone who gets a handful of rejections will give up, but even so, there's an endless pool of would-be writers.

Are some of the rejections based on false positives? Could be. But I reckon that by now Laurel has a pretty good grasp of what AI slop looks like. And don't forget: it's her site, she has the final say in what gets published and what doesn't. If she rejects a story because it reads like it was AI-generated, that means she doesn't feel it's worth publishing on her site. Lesson for the writer: your style isn't good enough, try harder.

The simple fact is that not everyone can be a writer. Just like not everyone can be a painter, or a flautist, or a furniture maker, or a racing car driver. It takes practice and application, and at least a germ of talent. If a publisher - including Laurel - says they're not interested in your work, you can either give up or find out what it will take to change that. Find out what your writing lacks that published writing doesn't. Read. Write. Learn the rules, the tricks and the techniques. Become a writer.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Are some of the rejections based on false positives? Could be. But I reckon that by now Laurel has a pretty good grasp of what AI slop looks like. And don't forget: it's her site, she has the final say in what gets published and what doesn't. If she rejects a story because it reads like it was AI-generated, that means she doesn't feel it's worth publishing on her site. Lesson for the writer: your style isn't good enough, try harder.

But but but StillStunned, people don't want you to say that!

(I totally agree).

The simple fact is that not everyone can be a writer. Just like not everyone can be a painter, or a flautist, or a furniture maker, or a racing car driver. It takes practice and application, and at least a germ of talent. If a publisher - including Laurel - says they're not interested in your work, you can either give up or find out what it will take to change that. Find out what your writing lacks that published writing doesn't. Read. Write. Learn the rules, the tricks and the techniques. Become a writer.

Gosh. Burn the witch!

 

[Bamagan]

The simple fact is that not everyone can be a writer. Just like not everyone can be a painter, or a flautist, or a furniture maker, or a racing car driver. It takes practice and application, and at least a germ of talent. If a publisher - including Laurel - says they're not interested in your work, you can either give up or find out what it will take to change that. Find out what your writing lacks that published writing doesn't. Read. Write. Learn the rules, the tricks and the techniques. Become a writer.

And not to be cruel, but the standard of technical competency the site requires is not very high. There's a lot of pretty flawed writing that gets passed through. Someone with enough literacy to be reading the site can probably attain the minimum proficiency in a matter of weeks.

 

[onehitwanda]

And not to be cruel, but the standard of technical competency the site requires is not very high. There's a lot of pretty flawed writing that gets passed through. Someone with enough literacy to be reading the site can probably attain the minimum proficiency in a matter of weeks.

but my dopamine!

sorry. that was catty.

 

[Bamagan]

but my dopamine!

sorry. that was catty.

Fear not! Dopamine also plays a role in memory, learning, and motivation! Learning how to write porn is basically like edging!

 

[onehitwanda]

Learning how to write porn is basically like edging!

this explains so much, and I am uncomfortable with this new knowledge.

 

[ElectricBlue]

And not to be cruel, but the standard of technical competency the site requires is not very high. There's a lot of pretty flawed writing that gets passed through. Someone with enough literacy to be reading the site can probably attain the minimum proficiency in a matter of weeks.

You're right, it's a low bar. It's not the high jump, that's for sure.

 

[Bamagan]

this explains so much, and I am uncomfortable with this new knowledge.

Many people here seem rather orgasmic when their stories get published. Votes and comments are aftercare.

 

[Bamagan]

You're right, it's a low bar. It's not the high jump, that's for sure.

Yeah, the limbo is probably a more apt comparison.