Fake positives in AI detection tools, and the fear of being human.

[SilkyVine]

Write your own stories. Edit your own stories (or enlist other people to help you with that). You won't have a problem.

Well said on everything and I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, but this statement here is the problem. People are writing and editing their own stories without AI and are still being forced to jump through hoops, making major re-writes of already human written content all to appease a system we don't, and are not allowed, to understand. Frankly, it's asinine.

I get that a large majority of people are having 0 issues, and while there are certainly plenty of bad actors, I refuse to believe everyone coming to the forums saying "I didn't use AI — I've been rejected for AI use" is a liar.

It's a tough one because on one hand, Literotica's method of detecting AI use (whatever it may be) has to remain a secretive so as to prevent it from being circumvented on the other hand, it seems unfair to the genuine people getting caught up in rejections and having to come to the forums to essentially guess how to fix it. Because based on what I'm seeing in these threads, that's all we seem to be doing. and that doesn't seem like an excellent system.

Again, not trying to be argumentative or anything, it just sucks to see so many frustrated authors on here due to this issue. At the end of the day, most of us are hobbyists just here to write for fun and this stuff is kind of putting a damper on that.

 

[MrPixel]

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/how-to-avoid-ai-rejection.1607906/post-101448874

 

[AwkwardMD]

Well said on everything and I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, but this statement here is the problem. People are writing and editing their own stories without AI and are still being forced to jump through hoops, making major re-writes of already human written content all to appease a system we don't, and are not allowed, to understand. Frankly, it's asinine.

I get that a large majority of people are having 0 issues, and while there are certainly plenty of bad actors, I refuse to believe everyone coming to the forums saying "I didn't use AI — I've been rejected for AI use" is a liar.

It's a tough one because on one hand, Literotica's method of detecting AI use (whatever it may be) has to remain a secretive so as to prevent it from being circumvented on the other hand, it seems unfair to the genuine people getting caught up in rejections and having to come to the forums to essentially guess how to fix it. Because based on what I'm seeing in these threads, that's all we seem to be doing. and that doesn't seem like an excellent system.

Again, not trying to be argumentative or anything, it just sucks to see so many frustrated authors on here due to this issue. At the end of the day, most of us are hobbyists just here to write for fun and this stuff is kind of putting a damper on that.

This is 100% accurate. There are false positives, and it is agonizing to see them unfold. Usually, in the course of conversation, I can spot the contributing factors. I do not believe there is a *pattern* of false positives, but they happen.

I have, on a few occasions, reached out to Laurel to on behalf of rejected authors when I was convinced it was just a fluke, but my word is only that. I don’t have magic powers.

All that being said, knowing what I know, I do approach every "I got rejected for AI but I wrote it all myself" conversations from a place of mistrust.

 

[SilkyVine]

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/how-to-avoid-ai-rejection.1607906/post-101448874

Like I said, threads of people guessing how to avoid it with such advice that boils down to "don't use ai" "write better" "write in a completely different style" ... I've even seen someone say "use bad grammar because only AI is perfect" every single piece of what I just said is well meaning but it does not help someone who's been falsely accused of AI usage and told to re-write their

All that being said, knowing what I know, I do approach every "I got rejected for AI but I wrote it all myself" conversations from a place of mistrust.

Fair. It's a shame because 1 in 10 people are probably telling the truth and the other 9 are just not willing to admit their AI work sucks and shouldn't be on here.

Anyway, im not here to beat a dead horse. Thanks for the work you do trying to help people who are legitimately having issues.

It's just an interesting conundrum because as frustrating as it can be, I think none of us want the site to be filled with AI slop. I suppose we just have to deal the system as well as it works for now.

 

[AwkwardMD]

People are writing and editing their own stories without AI and are still being forced to jump through hoops, making major re-writes of already human written content all to appease a system we don't, and are not allowed, to understand. Frankly, it's asinine.

I don't believe the problem is as widespread as all that.

If Lit has 250 submissions a day, that's 1,750 a week. We see, what, 3 posts a week from new authors who don't understand how they got a rejection? From a pure numbers perspective, that seems tolerable.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Like I said, threads of people guessing how to avoid it with such advice that boils down to "don't use ai" "write better" "write in a completely different style" ... I've even seen someone say "use bad grammar because only AI is perfect" every single piece of what I just said is well meaning but it does not help someone who's been falsely accused of AI usage and told to re-write their

I try to shut those down if I believe they are not just unhelpful but actively detrimental, but I've been accused of gaslighting, gatekeeping, or schilling for the site. I have limits.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[StillStunned]

People might call me snooty, but if you're story is being rejected on suspicion of AI, then you probably have to adjust your style from business-formal to fiction. Even if you wrote it entirely by yourself, it's presumably not what the site classifies as fiction writing.

Fiction writing is an entirely separate skill from business writing. If you send a report to your boss that reads like fiction, it will probably be sent back with a stern warning about being professional. Similarly, if you submit a work of fiction that reads like a business report, don't be surprised if the editor says thanks but no thanks.

The standards of quality here aren't high. I'm sure we've all read stories that made us wonder whether the writer had even a basic grasp of knowledge, and had bothered to read through what they'd written a single time. And styles here cover the entire spectrum from static and staccato to fluent and florid. There's something for everyone.

So if you find yourself looking at that "AI" rejection, just think of it as an opportunity to practise. Particularly if you're at the start of your writing journey, it's foolish to say, "This is my style and my voice, and I'm not going to change it for anyone."

Nobody here sprang from Zeus's head as a fully grown writer, keyboard in one hand and thesaurus in the other. We wrote, we failed, we wrote some more, we learned our weaknesses, we experimented with styles and we became better. To me, that's half the fun.

Stories get rejected for breaking any number of rules. Perhaps one of the rules should be: "Even if you didn't use AI to write your story, try not to sound like you did."

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Like I said, threads of people guessing how to avoid it with such advice that boils down to "don't use ai" "write better" "write in a completely different style" ... I've even seen someone say "use bad grammar because only AI is perfect" every single piece of what I just said is well meaning but it does not help someone who's been falsely accused of AI usage and told to re-write their

I'm one of those well meaning people.

For me it's just pragmatic. As writers, we only control what we control. In the face of a seemingly arbitrary and obviously ambiguous foe, all we can do is adjust what we write to try and sneak through the gaps. If that means changing our style or revamping chapters or, heaven forbid, introducing bad grammar, then that's what we need to do.

The AI check is out of our control. So, when I suggest people change their style, I'm not being malicious or pandering, I'm just suggesting we work within what we control. The alternative is to publish somewhere that doesn't have the same AI scan. To me, it's pretty black and white.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Nobody here sprang from Zeus's head as a fully grown writer, keyboard in one hand and thesaurus in the other.

I'd offer that there's a good chance @EmilyMiller may have

 

[SilkyVine]

Stories get rejected for breaking any number of rules. Perhaps one of the rules should be: "Even if you didn't use AI to write your story, try not to sound like you did."

I cant say I wholeheartedly agree but I do get the sentiment. But I wanted to say this actually made me laugh out loud and would be a fitting rule tbh

 

[SilkyVine]

I'm one of those well meaning people.

For me it's just pragmatic. As writers, we only control what we control. In the face of a seemingly arbitrary and obviously ambiguous foe, all we can do is adjust what we write to try and sneak through the gaps. If that means changing our style or revamping chapters or, heaven forbid, introducing bad grammar, then that's what we need to do.

The AI check is out of our control. So, when I suggest people change their style, I'm not being malicious or pandering, I'm just suggesting we work within what we control. The alternative is to publish somewhere that doesn't have the same AI scan. To me, it's pretty black and white.

Agreed and as I said to @StillStunned I get the sentiment. This is all hypothetical of course — I've thus far not been flagged for AI. But for what's it worth, I do agree it's pretty black and white and if I were told to re-write my human written work I would more than likely just take it elsewhere.

As I said before, this is just a hobby and my writing kinda sucks tbh im not in the business of pandering it to alleviate someone's fears of AI usage. (big loss I know lol)

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Like I said, threads of people guessing how to avoid it with such advice that boils down to "don't use ai" "write better" "write in a completely different style" ... I've even seen someone say "use bad grammar because only AI is perfect" every single piece of what I just said is well meaning but it does not help someone who's been falsely accused of AI usage and told to re-write their

Fair. It's a shame because 1 in 10 people are probably telling the truth and the other 9 are just not willing to admit their AI work sucks and shouldn't be on here.

Anyway, im not here to beat a dead horse. Thanks for the work you do trying to help people who are legitimately having issues.

It's just an interesting conundrum because as frustrating as it can be, I think none of us want the site to be filled with AI slop. I suppose we just have to deal the system as well as it works for now.

I liked your take on all of this, and I am glad you voiced your thoughts.

The fact is, and you can see some of that in this thread as well, that a good deal of AH-ers approach people who post complaints about being rejected for alleged AI use with haughtiness, even condescension.
Much of it comes from zealotry in defending Literotica at all costs, and I've posted about it here many times, but some of it likely comes from the actual sense of superiority of their own writing. There have been more than a few cases of borderline bullying of those who dared to complain about being wrongfully rejected.
And I'll be fair and admit that I don't have a problem with that in general (except for the bullying part). I respect those who voice their criticism about any topic. A world where we only speak praise frightens me.
But what I do mind is the fact that they only speak like that about those who dare to complain about rejections. Yet there are such horrendously written stories that do get past the submission process. But those are fine for them, it appears.

To be fair, I've seen a good deal of AI-rejection posters where it quickly became obvious they were trying to bullshit their way into being approved by the site. As if Laurel cares one bit what we post here.

But I've also seen people who seemed genuine and who got shredded here with the same remarks of writing blandly or simply sucking.

One thing you should remember: many AH-ers have this reverent, even semi-worshipful, vision of Laurel. You could see some of that in the post I named fan fiction. What is more important is that they take personal offense when Laurel or Literotica is being criticized.

I can tell you with absolute honesty here that a certain number of AH members, to whom I've been nothing but kind, and with whom, up until that point, I had a very friendly relationship here on the forum, suddenly started throwing jabs my way, ignoring my replies to them, etc. And all of that because I often dare to voice my criticism towards certain Literotica practices. I've done absolutely nothing to deserve their behavior in any of our personal interactions. It's my most personal, and my most solid proof of the cult mentality that some people here exhibit.

Finally, when it comes to those free online AI detection tools, I largely agree with the prevailing opinion here. They do seem to suck mostly. But if all the AI-detection tools we've ever used suck so much, where the hell does this unwavering faith in Laurel's AI-detection tool or process come from? How is it that Laurel alone seems to have such a fine piece of software, which allows her to detect AI-generated work with such a high degree of trust that we automatically suspect those authors who come here to complain? Is this not cult mentality?

 

[AwkwardMD]

I liked your take on all of this, and I am glad you voiced your thoughts.

The fact is, and you can see some of that in this thread as well, that a good deal of AH-ers approach people who post complaints about being rejected for alleged AI use with haughtiness, even condescension.
Much of it comes from zealotry in defending Literotica at all costs, and I've posted about it here many times, but some of it likely comes from the actual sense of superiority of their own writing. There have been more than a few cases of borderline bullying of those who dared to complain about being wrongfully rejected.
And I'll be fair and admit that I don't have a problem with that in general (except for the bullying part). I respect those who voice their criticism about any topic. A world where we only speak praise frightens me.
But what I do mind is the fact that they only speak like that about those who dare to complain about rejections. Yet there are such horrendously written stories that do get past the submission process. But those are fine for them, it appears.

To be fair, I've seen a good deal of AI-rejection posters where it quickly became obvious they were trying to bullshit their way into being approved by the site. As if Laurel cares one bit what we post here.

But I've also seen people who seemed genuine and who got shredded here with the same remarks of writing blandly or simply sucking.

One thing you should remember: many AH-ers have this reverent, even semi-worshipful, vision of Laurel. You could see some of that in the post I named fan fiction. What is more important is that they take personal offense when Laurel or Literotica is being criticized.

I can tell you with absolute honesty here that a certain number of AH members, to whom I've been nothing but kind, and with whom, up until that point, I had a very friendly relationship here on the forum, suddenly started throwing jabs my way, ignoring my replies to them, etc. And all of that because I often dare to voice my criticism towards certain Literotica practices. I've done absolutely nothing to deserve their behavior in any of our personal interactions. It's my most personal, and my most solid proof of the cult mentality that some people here exhibit.

Finally, when it comes to those free online AI detection tools, I largely agree with the prevailing opinion here. They do seem to suck mostly. But if all the AI-detection tools we've ever used suck so much, where the hell does this unwavering faith in Laurel's AI-detection tool or process come from? How is it that Laurel alone seems to have such a fine piece of software, which allows her to detect AI-generated work with such a high degree of trust that we automatically suspect those authors who come here to complain? Is this not cult mentality?

You are taking so many passive-aggressive pot shots at so many different people that it's impossible to parse this for a meaningful response, and it makes your "I've been nothing but kind" defense a curious choice.

Some people. Certain AH members. Many AHers. A good deal of AHers. Subtext is for cowards.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

You are taking so many passive-aggressive pot shots at so many different people that it's impossible to parse this for a meaningful response, and it makes your "I've been nothing but kind" defense a curious choice.

Some people. Certain AH members. Many AHers. A good deal of AHers. Subtext is for cowards.

I believe I showed I have no qualms about calling people out by their names when I feel it's important enough. I've called you out on one such occasion, and you responded like an opinionated snowflake. If you want, I can post the PM exchange we had as proof, and let people judge.
Also, in your first-ever reply here to me, about three years ago, you acted like a bully, just the way you acted in many other threads, usually starting with your dismissive "Drink." You are really the last person who should call me out on this.

I said "certain AH-ers", not out of desire to be vague, but because there is more than one such person. Significantly more. Naming just a few who are among the more active ones feels unjust. But anyone who desires to know whether they belong to the group, I'll name them without a problem. You are not one of those people, for the record, so that post wasn't about calling you out. We've certainly had a lot more history of clashing than of being kind to one another.

If anything, by going against the mainstream flow of opinion here almost all the time, I believe I've proven I have no problem with direct confrontation. I publicly called out Laurel, and I've publicly called out Manu in the very thread he/she started. I believe they are quite a bit more important and powerful here on Lit than anybody else. And more than that, when I did it, I knew most people here would disapprove of it, yet I still did it.
And let's not even mention my Stacnash thread two years ago, back when she was still the pet of the AH community. So your story about me lacking balls to call people out is hilarious as fuck.

 

[TheLobster]

Nobody here sprang from Zeus's head as a fully grown writer, keyboard in one hand and thesaurus in the other.

Just one? How amateurish. I’ll have you know that my writing had always been done by dual wielding two thesauruses and mashing my head against the keyboard until the appropriately loquacious verbiage emerges.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I believe I showed I have no qualms about calling people out by their names when I feel it's important enough. I've called you out on one such occasion, and you responded like an opinionated snowflake. If you want, I can post the PM exchange we had as proof, and let people judge.
Also, in your first-ever reply here to me, about three years ago, you acted like a bully, just the way you acted in many other threads, usually starting with your dismissive "Drink." You are really the last person who should call me out on this.

I said "certain AH-ers", not out of desire to be vague, but because there is more than one such person. Significantly more. Naming just a few who are among the more active ones feels unjust. But anyone who desires to know whether they belong to the group, I'll name them without a problem. You are not one of those people, for the record, so that post wasn't about calling you out. We've certainly had a lot more history of clashing than of being kind to one another.

If anything, by going against the mainstream flow of opinion here almost all the time, I believe I've proven I have no problem with direct confrontation. I publicly called out Laurel, and I've publicly called out Manu in the very thread he/she started. I believe they are quite a bit more important and powerful here on Lit than anybody else. And more than that, when I did it, I knew most people here would disapprove of it, yet I still did it.
And let's not even mention my Stacnash thread two years ago, back when she was still the pet of the AH community. So your story about me lacking balls to call people out is hilarious as fuck.

How, um, uh, Awkward... <smirks and sneaks out of the room before someone throws something at her>

 

[AwkwardMD]

I believe I showed I have no qualms about calling people out by their names when I feel it's important enough. I've called you out on one such occasion, and you responded like an opinionated snowflake. If you want, I can post the PM exchange we had as proof, and let people judge.
Also, in your first-ever reply here to me, about three years ago, you acted like a bully, just the way you acted in many other threads, usually starting with your dismissive "Drink." You are really the last person who should call me out on this.

I said "certain AH-ers", not out of desire to be vague, but because there is more than one such person. Significantly more. Naming just a few who are among the more active ones feels unjust. But anyone who desires to know whether they belong to the group, I'll name them without a problem. You are not one of those people, for the record, so that post wasn't about calling you out. We've certainly had a lot more history of clashing than of being kind to one another.

If anything, by going against the mainstream flow of opinion here almost all the time, I believe I've proven I have no problem with direct confrontation. I publicly called out Laurel, and I've publicly called out Manu in the very thread he/she started. I believe they are quite a bit more important and powerful here on Lit than anybody else. And more than that, when I did it, I knew most people here would disapprove of it, yet I still did it.
And let's not even mention my Stacnash thread two years ago, back when she was still the pet of the AH community. So your story about me lacking balls to call people out is hilarious as fuck.

Be sure to lift with the knees when you're carrying around all this baggage.

 

[jsmiam]

There’s are two factors that don’t quite get enough attention:

One it’s “mostly” new people who seem to be flagged, even though in this very thread Millie mentioned being flagged. Similar to other writing flaws like dialogue formatting, perhaps (on average) it’s more a new writer issue (but definitely not always). One poster a few weeks ago had lots of stories. Nonetheless, frequent publishers sometimes have a tendency to say “it didn’t happen to me so it can’t be a problem.”

Also, in the not so distant past, autocomplete was relatively simplistic, mostly just words, not entire phrases or endings to a whose sentence.

Then, one day depending on your chosen platform, autocomplete started offering way more than before.

And people didn’t notice what was happening. Similarly grammarly, rewriting one sentence at a time, and the rewritten sentences add up. Some of these folks probably didn’t get where they got maliciously, but nonetheless got caught in a trap.

 

[AwkwardMD]

There’s are two factors that don’t quite get enough attention:

One it’s “mostly” new people who seem to be flagged, even though in this very thread Millie mentioned being flagged. Similar to other writing flaws like dialogue formatting, perhaps (on average) it’s more a new writer issue (but definitely not always). One poster a few weeks ago had lots of stories. Nonetheless, frequent publishers sometimes have a tendency to say “it didn’t happen to me so it can’t be a problem.”

@MillieDynamite Did you ever attempt to resubmit with a note?

Also, in the not so distant past, autocomplete was relatively simplistic, mostly just words, not entire phrases or endings to a whose sentence.

Then, one day depending on your chosen platform, autocomplete started offering way more than before.

And people didn’t notice what was happening. Similarly grammarly, rewriting one sentence at a time, and the rewritten sentences add up. Some of these folks probably didn’t get where they got maliciously, but nonetheless got caught in a trap.

It's extremely unfortunate the way tech companies have... not even allowed these things to infiltrate but actively snuck them in.

My AI Rejection helpdesk thread is specifically in place to help people who fell afoul of the rules with the best of intentions. I've helped several people get their submissions posted.

 

[StillStunned]

But what I do mind is the fact that they only speak like that about those who dare to complain about rejections. Yet there are such horrendously written stories that do get past the submission process. But those are fine for them, it appears.

If someone comes to the AH and says, "My story was rejected for being crap," I'll give them my honest opinion. In fact, I reply to requests for feedback in the "Story Feedback" forum with what I hope is constructive but honest criticism.

One thing you should remember: many AH-ers have this reverent, even semi-worshipful, vision of Laurel. You could see some of that in the post I named fan fiction. What is more important is that they take personal offense when Laurel or Literotica is being criticized.

Speaking for myself, my attitude towards Laurel is one of immense gratitude for giving me somewhere to publish my stories, and interact with readers and other writers. She and Manu put in a lot of work to make that happen, and it's become a huge part of my life. I suspect that other AH'ers feel the same way. It might not be perfect, but the occasional frustration or annoyance doesn't diminish the overall benefit and enjoyment.

But then again, plenty of people have explained that to you. And still you feel we should join you on some crusade to complain about the site at every possible opportunity.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Be sure to lift with the knees when you're carrying around all this baggage.

Yeah, mock and evade as is your typical MO. By the way, I thought you had me on ignore? Funny how unreliable that little button is, eh?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

If someone comes to the AH and says, "My story was rejected for being crap," I'll give them my honest opinion. In fact, I reply to requests for feedback in the "Story Feedback" forum with what I hope is constructive but honest criticism.


Speaking for myself, my attitude towards Laurel is one of immense gratitude for giving me somewhere to publish my stories, and interact with readers and other writers. She and Manu put in a lot of work to make that happen, and it's become a huge part of my life. I suspect that other AH'ers feel the same way. It might not be perfect, but the occasional frustration or annoyance doesn't diminish the overall benefit and enjoyment.

But then again, plenty of people have explained that to you. And still you feel we should join you on some crusade to complain about the site at every possible opportunity.

That's BS.
I don't criticize Lit in all its aspects. I've voiced my support for a number of its practices, likely just as many as I've criticized. I've also never asked anyone to join me in my criticism. The only thing I asked for is for people not to take it as a personal offense when I do criticize. Because I've taken snarks, personal jabs, and ad hominems from a number of people for doing it. From you as well.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Yeah, mock and evade as is your typical MO. By the way, I thought you had me on ignore? Funny how unreliable that little button is, eh?

For one thing, I asked you to name names and you didn't. You just whined about me, and how poorly everyone treats you. If you want to wallow, wallow.

That being said, yeah, I do "evade" i don't have the emotional stamina to correct every mistake other people make, and I dip out. If you want to conflate this disagreement of how the site handles AI with your choice to defend other peoples bigoted posts, then you're welcome to continue to think of me as an opinionated snowflake. I am not responsible for your incorrect impression of me, and if you need me to be the villain in your story then by all means continue to think so.

I'll continue to be over here doing praxis.

 

[StillStunned]

That's BS.
I don't criticize Lit in all its aspects. I've voiced my support for a number of its practices, likely just as many as I've criticized. I've also never asked anyone to join me in my criticism.

Bollocks. You're forever going on about how we're kiss-arses for not criticising Lit.

The only thing I asked for is for people not to take it as a personal offense when I do criticize. Because I've taken snarks, personal jabs, and ad hominems from a number of people for doing it. From you as well.

If you jab at us for not criticising the site, you should expect us to jab back for harping on about it.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

For one thing, I asked you to name names and you didn't.

And I said why, even named one person when they responded to my post. You are just trying to find an angle to jab at me, implying my supposed cowardice.

then you're welcome to continue to think of me as an opinionated snowflake. I am not responsible for your incorrect impression of me, and if you need me to be the villain in your story then by all means continue to think so.

I said you acted like one. There is some difference there. Again, if you feel that was unfair or an incorrect impression, as you say, I can substantiate it with our PM exchange.