Pending??

[AwkwardMD]

Mistakes are not what makes something look like AI. @AwkwardMD is the local expert. In my experience reading student work, varying sentence length is the best way not to look like AI. But I have not read your stories so I can’t say what caused the problem

Lit's AI Detector is looking for something specific. It's not mistakes, purposeful or otherwise, and sentence length should not trigger it whether they are uniform or varied.

I have no doubt that this serves you well out in the real world for spotting students, but Lit's system does it differently.

 

[AwkwardMD]

The common belief is that purgatory is actually waiting for a manual review, which sometimes take a very long time to happen.

I'm sorry it happened to you.

I have to ask. Do you use Grammarly? That does count as using AI to write your story.

If you are truly not using AI (there absolutely are false accusations, that is unfortunately unavoidable if the site wants to keep AI generated stories out), there are threads here about what to do.

I also do not/no longer believe the pending purgatory had anything to do with manual reviews. Lit has always rejected any flagged story out of hand, and waited for a resubmit to invest time in a manual review.

You can see this in incorrect underage rejections. Including a 16 year old character will sometimes get a story rejected, but when you resubmit with a note and the story is accepted without changes that shows you where the manual review is happening.

I do not have an answer for the long pending times right now. I suspect it is related to the BTS swaps that are happening related to author feed activity. We are clearly all being transferred from one system to a middle waiting area, and then to a final area where everything works. My best guess is that long pending stories are related to that, although I still suspect it is a bug and not the designed intent of this multi-phase transition.

EDIT: i always suspected that waiting to do the manual review saved Laurel an unholy amount of time checking flagged stories that really were out of tolerance. I've personally had nearly all of my rejected stories published after an immediate resubmission.

 

[old_prof]

I also do not/no longer believe the pending purgatory had anything to do with manual reviews. Lit has always rejected any flagged story out of hand, and waited for a resubmit to invest time in a manual review.

You can see this in incorrect underage rejections. Including a 16 year old character will sometimes get a story rejected, but when you resubmit with a note and the story is accepted without changes that shows you where the manual review is happening.

I do not have an answer for the long pending times right now. I suspect it is related to the BTS swaps that are happening related to author feed activity. We are clearly all being transferred from one system to a middle waiting area, and then to a final area where everything works. My best guess is that long pending stories are related to that, although I still suspect it is a bug and not the designed intent of this multi-phase transition.

EDIT: i always suspected that waiting to do the manual review saved Laurel an unholy amount of time checking flagged stories that really were out of tolerance. I've personally had nearly all of my rejected stories published after an immediate resubmission.

Interesting. I believe you have much more actual knowledge than my pure speculation, so I assume you are right, In trying to build a new mental model for me, I'm trying to understand why many of the purgatories end up as AI rejections (and occasionally content rejections).

 

[Britva415]

under their own FAQ the powers that be stipulate that they don’t have an AI Policy

I don't see this as ironic. The absence of a policy doesn't mean they can't still refuse what they think is gen-AI work

 

[Dark_Logan_]

If there are no rules why is there a rule book?

 

[darwin1859]

Lit's AI Detector is looking for something specific [...] sentence length should not trigger it whether they are uniform or varied.

I have no doubt that this serves you well out in the real world for spotting students, but Lit's system does it differently.

@AwkwardMD, I'm curious what makes you think "burstiness" is uncorrelated to risk of being identified as AI by LE?

 

[darwin1859]

It seems to be the get out of jail free card …try not to bear in mind that under their own FAQ the powers that be stipulate that they don’t have an AI Policy

I think you're misreading that. The FAQ does say, "Literotica does not currently have an official comprehensive policy on Artificial Intelligence" but the rest of the FAQ seems pretty clear. For example, later:

Literotica’s Publishing Guidelines are clear - you must certify that you are the author of AND you own the copyright to any work published on Literotica. While simple AI tools (spelling and grammar tools, for example) do not usually interfere with an author’s copyright, there are unanswered questions around copyright when using some of the latest AI technologies that generate large blocks of text. If there are any questions about copyright related to any work you’ve used AI tools to help you create, we ask that you research and be 100% sure you own the full rights to the work before attempting to publish the work on Literotica. If you publish a work on Literotica to which you do not fully own the copyright, it may open you up to future legal repercussions.

That means "You cannot use AI because of the copyright issues." Which are very real. Currently, the USPTO won't register a copyright to you for works that were even partially written by AI. You have to renounce copyright on the AI portions. This strikes me as a ridiculous standard, but that's where we are.

I guess from Literotica's POV, there's the fear: what if the AI was regurgitating a copyrighted work? This strict policy against AI (and yeah, I think they have a very "strict" ani-AI policy) and their documented enforcement efforts to keep AI off the platform may provide a measure of protection again copyright claims.

And the content guidelines are also perfectly clear that they [Literotica] "DO NOT publish works" "generated by AI":

To that end, we DO NOT publish works of any type featuring the following content:
[...]
Works generated by artificial intelligence (AI), large language models (LLM), or other non-human automated systems. Literotica publishes works by human for humans. For more information, see our AI policy.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Interesting. I believe you have much more actual knowledge than my pure speculation, so I assume you are right, In trying to build a new mental model for me, I'm trying to understand why many of the purgatories end up as AI rejections (and occasionally content rejections).

My suspicion is the sheer volume of junk that must be going into the pending pile. If the, "My story has been rejected for suspected AI," threads are the tip of the iceberg, I'd say there's a huge horrible pile of actual AI junk beneath the surface.

I reckon we're hearing about those stories where folk have used Grammarly or equivalent, or their style is unfortunately, very like AI. What we're not seeing is the amount of junk that is probably being submitted - keep in mind the number of threads where people have asked, "Is it okay to use AI to help me write?" Been a bunch of them.

 

[SamBomb]

Mine has been pending since November 15th...

 

[Dark_Logan_]

I think you're misreading that. The FAQ does say, "Literotica does not currently have an official comprehensive policy on Artificial Intelligence" but the rest of the FAQ seems pretty clear. For example, later:

That means "You cannot use AI because of the copyright issues." Which are very real. Currently, the USPTO won't register a copyright to you for works that were even partially written by AI. You have to renounce copyright on the AI portions. This strikes me as a ridiculous standard, but that's where we are.

I guess from Literotica's POV, there's the fear: what if the AI was regurgitating a copyrighted work? This strict policy against AI (and yeah, I think they have a very "strict" ani-AI policy) and their documented enforcement efforts to keep AI off the platform may provide a measure of protection again copyright claims.

And the content guidelines are also perfectly clear that they [Literotica] "DO NOT publish works" "generated by AI":

It would appear that the previous FAQ on AI Policy has now been removed and there isn’t one

Either that or I gave up being arsed trying to find it …that it doesn’t appear to be obviously available is possibly telling

I dont condone AI - have never been tempted by it but in the continued ambiguity around here I’ll stick to my guns on it being a convenient excuse

I’ve largely stopped checking on the pending status of submissions I made at the beginning of October (having previously explored every recommended avenue)… but I’ll put any money on the fact they’ll inevitably and lazily both be rejected on suspected use of AI

No help, no support, no genuine reasoning and no right to reply will be offered either because for reasons unknown and spectacularly uncommunicated publishing on this site has become a lottery and somewhat of a shit show lately

Wether that be for the unfortunate few who simply want their work made public or for the many that’s just the way it is, no argument or counter argument in favour of the anonymous leadership team can counter that based on the evidence of the vocal minority here.

 

[StillStunned]

My suspicion is the sheer volume of junk that must be going into the pending pile. If the, "My story has been rejected for suspected AI," threads are the tip of the iceberg, I'd say there's a huge horrible pile of actual AI junk beneath the surface.

I reckon we're hearing about those stories where folk have used Grammarly or equivalent, or their style is unfortunately, very like AI. What we're not seeing is the amount of junk that is probably being submitted - keep in mind the number of threads where people have asked, "Is it okay to use AI to help me write?" Been a bunch of them.

I recently read somewhere (either in an FAQ or a post by Laurel or Manu (may they live forever) that about a year ago they were getting an average of 250 submissions every day. At the time someone calculated that there were 175 new stories being published every day. So that makes 75 daily rejections a year ago. From the relative proportions of the "I don't understand why!" posts, I suspect that the majority were rejected on AI grounds. I also suspect that the number has risen exponentially since then.

It would appear that the previous FAQ on AI Policy has now been removed and there isn’t one

It's still in the same place it's always been.

That said, it might make sense for @Laurel and @Manu (may they live forever) to make it very clear and explicit at the very start of the story submission process that AI-generated or -assisted works will be rejected.

 

[AwkwardMD]

@AwkwardMD, I'm curious what makes you think "burstiness" is uncorrelated to risk of being identified as AI by LE?

I will not be discussing how it works.

EDIT: i would also encourage you to stop guessing. Write your own stories and edit your own stories (or enlist the aid of a volunteer editor). This is the only way.

 

[Racoonteur]

For anyone concerned with the "Pending Purgatory," I can tell you that it's all at the whim of Laurel and whomever else she has casually leafing through submissions here.

I submitted my second chapter knowing there was no mention of underage characters or underage ideation. None. It initially languished in purgatory until I nudged Laurel with a friendly PM. The piece was then rejected due to the simple fact that I did not ID one character as being above 18 that it was returned with one of the "underage" rejection templates they use. In other words, it was a lazy rejection that would have been much more effective had they just chosen to say, You need to ID Liv as being over 18. The didn't though, they just slapped their form rejection up and moved on.

As an author (national award winning irl) I'm familiar with this type of approach, so I reviewed and tightened things up and resubmitted. It stalled again until I sent another PM telling her I'd gone over everything and that I ID'd the youngest character as being over 18. Another "underage" template came my way.

Next I used a volunteer editor and we both went through it all with a fine toothed comb. In the meantime, I have been expressing my dissatisfaction here in this forum. I resubmitted with an age disclaimer that I noted along with the mention that I used an editor and ID'd the youngest character in the narrative as being over 18. I also mentioned that if it was rejected a 4th time for "underage issues" when there clearly are none that I was done.

I got the standard "underage" rejection in less than 24 hours. A very passive-aggressive, but obvious, message. What this tells me, (and all of you) is that all the speculation about the review process is baseless. The apologists are wrong. It is clearly a choice driven issue and it can be vindictive and petty. This boogered up "process" is due to a conscious decision. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that it is their prerogative. Mine is to leave.

 

[AwkwardMD]

For anyone concerned with the "Pending Purgatory," I can tell you that it's all at the whim of Laurel and whomever else she has casually leafing through submissions here.

I submitted my second chapter knowing there was no mention of underage characters or underage ideation. None. It initially languished in purgatory until I nudged Laurel with a friendly PM. The piece was then rejected due to the simple fact that I did not ID one character as being above 18 that it was returned with one of the "underage" rejection templates they use. In other words, it was a lazy rejection that would have been much more effective had they just chosen to say, You need to ID Liv as being over 18. The didn't though, they just slapped their form rejection up and moved on.

As an author (national award winning irl) I'm familiar with this type of approach, so I reviewed and tightened things up and resubmitted. It stalled again until I sent another PM telling her I'd gone over everything and that I ID'd the youngest character as being over 18. Another "underage" template came my way.

Next I used a volunteer editor and we both went through it all with a fine toothed comb. In the meantime, I have been expressing my dissatisfaction here in this forum. I resubmitted with an age disclaimer that I noted along with the mention that I used an editor and ID'd the youngest character in the narrative as being over 18. I also mentioned that if it was rejected a 4th time for "underage issues" when there clearly are none that I was done.

I got the standard "underage" rejection in less than 24 hours. A very passive-aggressive, but obvious, message. What this tells me, (and all of you) is that all the speculation about the review process is baseless. The apologists are wrong. It is clearly a choice driven issue and it can be vindictive and petty. This boogered up "process" is due to a conscious decision. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that it is their prerogative. Mine is to leave.

Good luck with your future writing

 

[LongLostSole]

I submitted my story yesterday. Today I received a “sent back” notice stating that I mentioned my submission contained bolds, italics, or special alignment, which is not true, as I did not include any notes to the editors nor does the story require any such formatting. The story was pasted directly into the submission box and formatted only with basic HTML paragraph tags (<p></p>), in accordance with the submission guidelines.

Dear Writer,

Thank you for your submission to Literotica. We appreciate the time and effort you've taken to write a story and submit it to our site . However, we've found that we cannot post your submission in its current form. The checklist below may help you in re-examining your manuscript.

You mention in your notes that your submission contains bolds, italics, or special alignment. Special formatting won't come through when a story is pasted from your document into the submission form. If you want the bolds, italics, or special alignment to show up in your submission, you must either 1) upload the story as a .doc or .rtf using the UPLOAD button beneath the text field, or 2) manually add the HTML code. For more information on this, please see: https://www.literotica.com/s/bold-or-italic
Please feel free to re-submit the story after a Volunteer Editor has examined it, or after you've made revisions. You can find a list of Volunteer Editors here.

Please consult our Writer's Resources section and make sure you read our submission guidelines.
If you have any questions on these, please let us know.

Thanks for your time, and look forward to reading you again!

Laurel & Manu
Literotica.Com

 

[AwkwardMD]

I submitted my story yesterday. Today I received a “sent back” notice stating that I mentioned my submission contained bolds, italics, or special alignment, which is not true, as I did not include any notes to the editors nor does the story require any such formatting. The story was pasted directly into the submission box and formatted only with basic HTML paragraph tags (<p></p>), in accordance with the submission guidelines.

You want this

EDIT: corrected

 

[darwin1859]

I will not be discussing how it works.

EDIT: i would also encourage you to stop guessing. Write your own stories and edit your own stories (or enlist the aid of a volunteer editor). This is the only way.

Actually, when you claimed to have some technical insight into the features used by the LE AI detector ("sentence length should not trigger it whether they are uniform or varied" -- which is burstiness, a common feature in AI detectors), I was trying to determine if you actually know something, or you're talking out your ass. And while it's still not clear, but I'm leaning towards the latter...

If so, and if you're trying to help authors, then I would discourage you from making statements about what you don't know. That's not helpful.

 

[darwin1859]

I submitted my story yesterday. Today I received a “sent back” notice stating that I mentioned my submission contained bolds, italics, or special alignment, which is not true, as I did not include any notes to the editors nor does the story require any such formatting. The story was pasted directly into the submission box and formatted only with basic HTML paragraph tags (<p></p>), in accordance with the submission guidelines.

Send it back with a polite note saying that that there must be some error and that you did not, in fact, include any such formatting?

I was grading papers and I inserted comments for student B into the grading field of student A. That shit happens. Luckily I caught it before I saved the grades. (Although, upon typing that, I wonder what I did NOT catch?)

 

[AwkwardMD]

Actually, when you claimed to have some technical insight into the features used by the LE AI detector ("sentence length should not trigger it whether they are uniform or varied" -- which is burstiness, a common feature in AI detectors), I was trying to determine if you actually know something, or you're talking out your ass. And while it's still not clear, but I'm leaning towards the latter...

You cannot determine what I know. You can only choose to trust what I say or not. I will not be disclosing my understanding of the system.

My only purpose there is to try to tamp down on the worst of the runaway fears, because fear is infectious. I can and will speak to my understanding. The system is not random. It is not AI trying to spot AI. It is not unforgiving toward those who speak English as their second language. And, most importantly, it is not perfect.

If you choose skepticism, that's fine. The line forms to the left.

If so, and if you're trying to help authors, then I would discourage you from making statements about what you don't know. That's not helpful.

I don't understand how to parse this sentence, because I do understand Lit's AI Detector and I have helped authors. I'm not sure what it is you think I then don't know, or what statements I've made. I'm usually pretty careful about qualifying guesses (like about long pending periods, a thing I do not understand).

 

[darwin1859]

You want this

This link is malformed (see below) but it looks like you're sending people to find an editor. I think Laurel's note (the one's I've seen posted in these forums) says that editors cannot handle AI. If so, and if I'm coprrect about what advice you're suggesting, then maybe you should stop giving this advice?

Again, if you're trying to be helpful...

 

[AwkwardMD]

This link is malformed (see below) but it looks like you're sending people to find an editor. I think Laurel's note (the one's I've seen posted in these forums) says that editors cannot handle AI. If so, and if I'm coprrect about what advice you're suggesting, then maybe you should stop giving this advice?

Again, if you're trying to be helpful...

View attachment 2584990

Laurel's note says that the Volunteer editors are sometimes not equipped to aid in an AI rejection. This was not an AI rejection but a formatting error.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Also, sometimes, volunteer editors ARE capable of aiding in AI rejections, but it’s a different beast to work around than an author's poor understanding of comma usage or enforcing tense agreement.

 

[darwin1859]

My only purpose there is to try to tamp down on the worst of the runaway fears,

I love your mission to tamp down fear. You're my fucking hero. That sounds facetious, but kudos on trying to help people. The world could use more of that. Literotica could use more of that.

But I'm still curious: Of the people who get that AI rejection,

1. Some people did use AI and they're caught. That's clear. No issue.

2. But what do you think someone unfairly flagged for using AI should do? They could just go away (or shelve that story). Or they could dispute the classification. But if they did not use AI and they don't know what features the AI detector is using, they're kind of fucked if they want LE to accept their story, right? I think that's extremely unfair.

And if you know how the AI detector works, then you would help them by describing how they would make their story seem less like AI. I fully understand why you wouldn't want to do that (if you knew how), because that might advantage "cheaters." But that's still extremely unfair.

And are you not part of the problem at that point?

 

[darwin1859]

Laurel's note says that the Volunteer editors are sometimes not equipped to aid in an AI rejection. This was not an AI rejection but a formatting error.

Sorry, you're 100% correct, I'm 100% wrong about this send-back.

 

[Britva415]

t would appear that the previous FAQ on AI Policy has now been removed and there isn’t one

idk what you have in mind, but finding this was trivially easy:

https://www.literotica.com/faq/publishing/publishing-ai