AI Allegations Thread

[MillieDynamite]

I have a few friends like that.

I would agree because I'm in somewhat the same situation though I'm not Chinese and I type on a desktop instead of an iPhone. I was absent from Literotica for several years, but I didn't stop writing so I have a significant backlog to post. I'm posting 2-3 stories a week and each and every one is a figment of my own imagination.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

I have a few friends like that.

Sometimes I wonder if this forum is just a figment of my imagination.

 

[NoTalentHack]

I disagree with the statement that posting many stories is, in any way, corroborating a case for OP using AI.

Look at @NoTalentHack. If I didn't miscount, the dude posted thirty-six stories in the past eleven months, and all of those were longer than OP's stories. The guy is basically the literary equivalent of a twelve-year-old Chinese boy in an iPhone factory. I don't think anyone would ever even dream about accusing him of using generative AI to speed up his writing.

That's the second thing I've been tempted to change my title to in two days! (The other was "The Tony Hawk of LW")

It's funny, because I actually do use ProWritingAid, but not to generate text. I played around with it a little bit, just to see, but it does make some bland stuff. I use it for sanity checks on spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Funnily enough, my output since I started using it has slowed down, because I'm thinking harder about word choice, etc. But my stuff, even after I'm "done" with PWA is still a mess of blue and yellow underlines, where it's telling me that I need to stop using so much passive voice and try for more expressive adverbs, with like a 70-75% style score.

Funny thing? It can't even decide what's more expressive. More than once, when looking at its suggestions, I'd change it, then it would suggest that I change it back to the original word. I'm a big booster of "AI" (in quotes, because it isn't) as a tool, but it's very much that: a tool. And that's true whether you're making digital art, writing, music, whatever.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Sometimes I wonder if this forum is just a figment of my imagination.

I don't think my imagination is that crazy.

There are times it's certainly like watching a slow motion trainwreck, while head spinning like the Exorcist.

 

[djrip]

With the added element that if she makes her methods public there is the fear the AI will learn from that how to avoid the detection.

No it won't. People using AI might adjust their methods, the AI certainly won't.

Another update because I like to make these xD

The two parts that were taken down yesterday were reinstated and the third rejected with a note telling me to make some small adjustments to the language used - nothing major by the looks of it.

I also heard back from Laurel. This was the main bulk of her message:

I rechecked your work and do still see parts that appear to be "reworded" by generative AI. Please be aware that Pro-Writing Aid does use generative AI. Generative AI does NOT "create" a story - it mashes together words from a library of (stolen) works, and the result is bland and toneless. If everyone on Lit chose to use generative AI, every single story on the site would sound exactly the same. Readers hate generative AI text, and they (and us as well) would rather you submitted grammatically wonky work in your own voice than submit generative AI.

We believe that writing is thinking. When you're putting your thoughts to paper (or a .doc file ) - be it a grocery list or a novel - you're organizing and sharpening your thoughts. Every single person who can read can craft a story of some kind. Some of my favorite writers (on Lit or elsewhere) would be flagged by Grammarly. Grammar software is NOT a calculator. While math is fairly objective, grammar is not. Relying on a grammar corrector will not make you a better writer.

It is entirely possible I clicked one these corrections by mistake which may explain why it's been flagged, but this provides a small insight into what's happening.

So, the grammar was correct, so it "appears to be reworded by generative AI?". WTF. You can't fucking tell by reading it that it's AI because AI writes correct English. It tends to be bland. People can be bland too, obviously. If we're rejecting stories for being bland, we should say so, and about half the stories on the site should go.

I do wish penguin remembered whether that was done; I would have liked to see a nice clear "no I didn't do that" on there. As it is, hell, maybe she did. But I still say you certainly can't tell whether she or the program wrote it by reading it.

I was going to say something along similar lines.

Laurel allows us to run around in her playground - a playground that she's built just for us. A playground where writers can publish their stories and find readers, interact with them and hone their craft. A playground where readers can find stories that suit their tastes and interact with writers. A playground where we can all goof off and pretend to be clever, or sexy, or intellectual, or whatever we like to think we are. And it's all for free.

But it's still Laurel's playground.

If it were as capricious for all of us as we're reading about here, I would think there would be a massive exodus of authors. Having dozens of stories pulled because of a report from a reader or irritated forum lurker or jealous author over something subjective and unverifiable like AI is absolutely fucked up.

And none of it from the stories that we write.

Also, if that's really the figure, I'd expect there to be an army of Laurels running this place. That kind of money creates a greater appreciation (or at least a greater sense of value) of what's generating the cash flow.

You don't think the stories that fill the page have something to do with why people see and click those tiny ads at the top?

Ok.

You currently have five pieces of work listed as active on the website. As for what was deleted, I was able to find a copy of Coveted Fruit, a successful story of yours originally published on 05/07/23.

I ran a check on that story and a large section of it scored 63.2% as being likely to have been generated by AI.

View attachment 2292271

Please note that no current AI detecting tool can say with 100% certainty that text was generated by AI. False positives do occur, but the chances drop when testing longer pieces of work, such as erotic fiction.

In your case, interestingly, an entire sex scene was flagged as being generated by AI (content in red is the flagged material).

View attachment 2292272

My conclusion is that you authored the story yourself, but, on the balance of probabilities, you relied upon a contemporary AI generator to compose your sex scene.

Many writers on Literotica, content creators on YouTube and others are relying on these tactics. Seeing as you only had 5 published stories by 05/22/23, and had supposedly authored 30+ pieces of work since then, that would also lend credence to the theory that you've used AI to create stories on an industrial scale.

The owners and administrators of Literotica are duty-bound to ensure that submissions meet the content guidelines. In a world where we can't have 100% certainty on AI generation, the balance of probabilities becomes the crucial evidential threshold. When the scanners have taken issue with specific sections of your writing, such as the sex scene(s) alone, I'm satisfied that Literotica has acted appropriately in pulling the stories that their scanners were concerned with.

You have a case to answer.

Others can take whatever view they wish, but this is very similar to the 8letters plagiarism case. It doesn't matter what the author's intentions were, or how little of the manuscript was affected, it's cheating. Whether you steal from another author, or rely on AI to make your sex scenes better, there should be a zero tolerance approach adopted.

Your conclusion is bullshit and your accusations are unsupported by evidence. I read the highlighted text and it sounds fine. Unless it's plagiarism, ie those exact words can be found elsewhere, there's no way to verify. AI detectors cannot accurately detect AI. It doesn't sound at all like AI to me. It could be, but there is zero evidence of that.

 

[MillieDynamite]

AI is far better at art than writing; even in art, it can be glitchy. Thrid arms or legs is one thing I've seen.

 

[DDX84]

Look at @NoTalentHack. If I didn't miscount, the dude posted thirty-six stories in the past eleven months, and all of those were longer than OP's stories. The guy is basically the literary equivalent of a twelve-year-old Chinese boy in an iPhone factory. I don't think anyone would ever even dream about accusing him of using generative AI to speed up his writing.

Based on your suggestion, I'm taking a look at their catalogue just now. One of those at the top of their list is After the Future is Gone.

A section of that story has been flagged as 81.1% likely to have been generated by AI.



I've barely even begun looking into their back catalogue, but entire sections are being flagged as strongly suspicious.

This is just using the example of the author you provided in response to me, completely unprompted, but I'll send a report off to Literotica and ask them to do a similar sweep of this author's work in the same manner as the OP.

Every author's in the same boat though. Those who didn't cheat by using software or tools to help create their stories have absolutely nothing to worry about. Also, Literotica is only going to delete stories that meet their criteria for failing the scans at their end. Scores of >50%, >70%? It's entirely up to them.

81.1% is a very high score for an uninterrupted block of text.

 

[djrip]

Based on your suggestion, I'm taking a look at their catalogue just now. One of those at the top of their list is After the Future is Gone.

A section of that story has been flagged as 81.1% likely to have been generated by AI.

View attachment 2292292

I've barely even begun looking into their back catalogue, but entire sections are being flagged as strongly suspicious.

This is just using the example of the author you provided in response to me, completely unprompted, but I'll send a report off to Literotica and ask them to do a similar sweep of this author's work in the same manner as the OP.

Every author's in the same boat though. Those who didn't cheat by using software or tools to help create their stories have absolutely nothing to worry about. Also, Literotica is only going to delete stories that meet their criteria for failing the scans at their end. Scores of >50%, >70%? It's entirely up to them.

81.1% is a very high score for an uninterrupted block of text.

Are you the fucking reporter? Jesus Christ.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Based on your suggestion, I'm taking a look at their catalogue just now. One of those at the top of their list is After the Future is Gone.

A section of that story has been flagged as 81.1% likely to have been generated by AI.

View attachment 2292292

I've barely even begun looking into their back catalogue, but entire sections are being flagged as strongly suspicious.

This is just using the example of the author you provided in response to me, completely unprompted, but I'll send a report off to Literotica and ask them to do a similar sweep of this author's work in the same manner as the OP.

Every author's in the same boat though. Those who didn't cheat by using software or tools to help create their stories have absolutely nothing to worry about. Also, Literotica is only going to delete stories that meet their criteria for failing the scans at their end. Scores of >50%, >70%? It's entirely up to them.

81.1% is a very high score for an uninterrupted block of text.

What tool are you using, for transparency’s sake?

Em

 

[djrip]

I genuinely can't remember if I did or not since I wrote this chapter in October and I can't remember what I clicked and what I didn't xD Going back through it, there were a few phrases that stood out to me but mainly because they were overly formal - I usually write Historical - so it's hard to determine just which parts Laurel means.

For the record, pronouns are she/her xD

Oops sorry! Edited.

 

[onehitwanda]

Those who didn't cheat by using software or tools to help create their stories have absolutely nothing to worry about.

This is a strong assertion; my counter is: There is currently no safeguard against false positive reports.

 

[Red_Herring4]

Every author's in the same boat though. Those who didn't cheat by using software or tools to help create their stories have absolutely nothing to worry about.

That's preposterous. Are you saying AI detection tools are infallible and never generate false positives?

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

This is just using the example of the author you provided in response to me, completely unprompted, but I'll send a report off to Literotica and ask them to do a similar sweep of this author's work in the same manner as the OP.

Every author's in the same boat though. Those who didn't cheat by using software or tools to help create their stories have absolutely nothing to worry about. Also, Literotica is only going to delete stories that meet their criteria for failing the scans at their end. Scores of >50%, >70%? It's entirely up to them.

81.1% is a very high score for an uninterrupted block of text.

Uh... I have to say, that was NOT what I had in mind when I made that post.

Though, I kinda have to admit that I find it highly interesting what would come out of a report like that. If Laurel actually goes ahead and treats a beloved and successful writer like NTH the same as is implied in this thread and starts pulling all of his stories because some stupid AI-Checker tells her to... I think the outrage would be so big, we no longer had to worry about her ever doing it again.

 

[nice90sguy]

each and every one is a figment of my own imagination.

You missed out the word "warped"

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I am intrigued by these checks and I would like to see how my own stories would score with that AI detection tool. Which one is the best?

Also, I am once again amused by all the posts about Laurel's desires and motivations, her way of thinking, and the way she works. Who knew, but it seems there are plenty of her intimate friends here.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Are you the fucking reporter? Jesus Christ.

I guess there's a reason that's a new account.
Though, I would laugh my ass off if this was OP themself, using an alt to prove the bias against them.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I am intrigued by these checks and I would like to see how my own stories would score with that AI detection tool. Which one is the best?

Also, I am once again amused by all the posts about Laurel's desires and motivations, her way of thinking, and the way she works. Who knew, but it seems there are plenty of her intimate friends here.

I Googled. All the ones I found had limits as to the number of characters. I put text from four of my stories into each (close to the character limit) - I picked two sex scenes in case those were flagged differently and two introductions. Got no lower than 98% human and several 100% human.

Not a meaningful data set obviously.

Em

 

[nice90sguy]

I haveta say, the red sections read quite nicely. Didn't notice any blandness, but presumably they're plagiaristic,.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I haveta say, the red sections read quite nicely. Didn't notice any blandness, but presumably they're plagiaristic,.

Or - the s/w is glitchy

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I Googled. All the ones I found had limits as to the number of characters. I put text from four of my stories into each (close to the character limit) - I picked two sex scenes in case those were flagged differently and two introductions. Got no lower than 98% human and several 100% human.

Not a meaningful data set obviously.

Em

I've tried one myself and yeah, it has 25k characters limitation. It probably gets better if you register?

 

[djrip]

I haveta say, the red sections read quite nicely. Didn't notice any blandness, but presumably they're plagiaristic,.

That's a baseless presumption. But yes, I thought they read just fine.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Now this is truly amusing. Let's trick them into being tricked.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I Googled. All the ones I found had limits as to the number of characters. I put text from four of my stories into each (close to the character limit) - I picked two sex scenes in case those were flagged differently and two introductions. Got no lower than 98% human and several 100% human.

Not a meaningful data set obviously.

Em

Well that’s a relief…

https://imgur.com/a/vgYj3EO

I think enough other humans observed me wrestling with this story first hand to confirm it’s my scrawl.

Em

 

[MillieDynamite]

There is no best or worst. You'll get different results from them, but if they all scream AI, your in serious trouble.

I am intrigued by these checks and I would like to see how my own stories would score with that AI detection tool. Which one is the best?

Also, I am once again amused by all the posts about Laurel's desires and motivations, her way of thinking, and the way she works. Who knew, but it seems there are plenty of her intimate friends here.

Here are a few for our perusal.

https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/
https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/
https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector
https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/

 

[EmilyMiller]

Well that’s a relief…

https://imgur.com/a/vgYj3EO

I think enough other humans observed me wrestling with this story first hand to confirm it’s my scrawl.

Em

The sample was over 3,000 words - not the snippet above.

Em