LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

I asked ChatGPT why human authors get accused of using AI. This is what it said.

FrancesScott

FrancesScott

Like a virgin
Joined
May 15, 2025
Posts
571
1️⃣ “AI-Writing Detection” Tools Are Flawed
  • Most AI detection tools rely on measuring perplexity (predictability of text):
    • AI-generated text tends to be more predictable (low perplexity) than human writing.
    • If a human writes clearly, directly, or formulaically, it can trigger false positives.
  • These detectors cannot “see” intent, context, or actual authorship—only patterns.

2️⃣ Human Writing Sometimes Resembles AI Patterns
  • If a human uses:
    • Short, complete, grammatically correct sentences,
    • Common phrasing or overuses certain structures,
    • Listicles or formulaic structures,
    • Avoids personal anecdotes or distinctive style,
      then the writing can look “AI-like.”

3️⃣ The Use of Tools and Clean Style
  • Many humans run their writing through:
    • Grammarly
    • Quillbot
    • Style-checkers
    • Predictive text suggestions
      which can flatten stylistic quirks, making text resemble AI outputs.

4️⃣ Misunderstanding of What AI Text “Sounds Like”
  • Accusers often equate “good grammar + clear structure” with “AI writing.”
  • They may also suspect AI if the writing seems:
    • “Emotionally flat”
    • “Overly objective”
    • “Verbose but shallow”
    • “Non-idiomatic but correct”
      even though many human writers naturally write this way.

5️⃣ Cultural & Institutional Pressure
  • Schools and journals are under pressure to enforce “no AI use” policies.
  • This can lead to overzealous accusations based on vague suspicion or unreliable detectors.

Summary: Why do human authors get accused falsely?

✅ Detection tools are inaccurate.

✅ Clear, grammatically correct, or formulaic writing triggers suspicion.

✅ Use of style tools flattens human uniqueness.

✅ People misunderstand what AI-generated text “is.”

✅ Institutional pressures cause over-policing.
 
The phrasal verb "delve into", used metaphorically. For some reason chat GPT loves it.
 
FrancesScott said:
I asked Grok and it blamed the woke mind virus.
Click to expand...
Cute.

Here's what Grok told me in answer to your question:

Human authors get accused of using AI for several reasons, often tied to the evolving landscape of writing and technology:


  1. Stylistic Similarities: AI-generated text can mimic polished, formulaic, or overly coherent prose, which some authors naturally produce. Readers or critics may mistake this for AI output, especially if the writing feels "too perfect" or lacks a distinct personal voice.
  2. Cultural Skepticism: As AI tools like ChatGPT or Grok become more accessible, there's growing suspicion about their use in creative fields. This leads to assumptions that authors, especially lesser-known ones, might rely on AI to produce work quickly or compensate for perceived skill gaps.
  3. Plagiarism Detection Tools: Some software flags AI-like patterns (e.g., repetitive phrasing or generic structures) even in human writing. These tools aren't always accurate and can falsely label human work as AI-generated.
  4. High Output Volume: Authors who publish frequently or produce large volumes of content may face accusations, as people assume such productivity is only possible with AI assistance.
  5. Misunderstanding Creative Process: Some authors use AI for brainstorming, editing, or minor tasks, which is distinct from generating entire works. Critics may not differentiate and assume full AI authorship.
  6. Bias Against New Authors: Emerging writers or those in genres like self-published fiction or content-heavy fields (e.g., blogging) are more likely to face scrutiny, as their work may align with AI's output patterns or lack the established "human" reputation of veteran authors.
  7. Public Discourse on X: Posts on X often amplify these accusations, with users quick to speculate about AI use based on writing style or output speed. For example, discussions around self-published books or online articles sometimes include claims of AI involvement without evidence.

These accusations often stem from a mix of technological paranoia, misinformed tools, and subjective judgment rather than concrete proof. If you'd like, I can search X for specific examples of such accusations or analyze a particular case you have in mind.
 
FrancesScott said:
Woudo that be a sales claim? Probably worth as much as any other sales claim.
Click to expand...
Probably, and the real numbers are probably a lot lower, but even if you take that at face value, it's still "wrong" at least 2% of the time. Give an estimated 200-250 submissions per day here at Lit, that's a lot of inaccuracy.
 
Then I repeated your experiment of running the question through Chat GPT. It gave me an answer very similar to what it gave you.
 
SkyBubble said:
Cute.

Here's what Grok told me in answer to your question:

Human authors get accused of using AI for several reasons, often tied to the evolving landscape of writing and technology:


  1. Stylistic Similarities: AI-generated text can mimic polished, formulaic, or overly coherent prose, which some authors naturally produce. Readers or critics may mistake this for AI output, especially if the writing feels "too perfect" or lacks a distinct personal voice.
  2. Cultural Skepticism: As AI tools like ChatGPT or Grok become more accessible, there's growing suspicion about their use in creative fields. This leads to assumptions that authors, especially lesser-known ones, might rely on AI to produce work quickly or compensate for perceived skill gaps.
  3. Plagiarism Detection Tools: Some software flags AI-like patterns (e.g., repetitive phrasing or generic structures) even in human writing. These tools aren't always accurate and can falsely label human work as AI-generated.
  4. High Output Volume: Authors who publish frequently or produce large volumes of content may face accusations, as people assume such productivity is only possible with AI assistance.
  5. Misunderstanding Creative Process: Some authors use AI for brainstorming, editing, or minor tasks, which is distinct from generating entire works. Critics may not differentiate and assume full AI authorship.
  6. Bias Against New Authors: Emerging writers or those in genres like self-published fiction or content-heavy fields (e.g., blogging) are more likely to face scrutiny, as their work may align with AI's output patterns or lack the established "human" reputation of veteran authors.
  7. Public Discourse on X: Posts on X often amplify these accusations, with users quick to speculate about AI use based on writing style or output speed. For example, discussions around self-published books or online articles sometimes include claims of AI involvement without evidence.

These accusations often stem from a mix of technological paranoia, misinformed tools, and subjective judgment rather than concrete proof. If you'd like, I can search X for specific examples of such accusations or analyze a particular case you have in mind.
Click to expand...

Was this before or after it referred to itself as Mecha-Hitler? (And, no, I’m not making that up.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top