AI Allegations Thread

[MillieDynamite]

I use it as it's intended since it isn't AI for writing. It only evaluates your work compared to either a writer in a genre or the genre in general. It isn't something that makes a change but only suggests that something needs work. It just gives comparisons. The longer I've used it, the less I need to make changes. Again, it doesn't change words, rewrite anything, remove, or add to your work. It is not an AI writer.

you might want to say you use it the way he does so someone doesn't report this

 

[NoTalentHack]

Yeah, I think you've captured the essence of the issue there. There are some who get it and those who feel that it's no big deal.



With respect, what you're arguing here is all over the place. Word processors are not the same thing as AI tools which generate content. The speed with which someone types has got nothing to do with the creation of content by AI tools.

Going back up to what Voboy alluded to, you've just proven his point. There are those that get it and others who don't even have so much as a fundamental understanding of the issue.

And you don't tell your tools to "go fuck themselves", because you clearly stated earlier that you've made a large number of adjustments to stories which you've written since 05/06/2023. Adjustments which were conceived and implemented by software tools and published, by you, as entirely your own work.

You're talking about "artistic stuff", here's a genuine question for anyone reading this. What's artistic about using software tools and AI to radically change a manuscript at the touch of a button? Whether it's changing entire words, sentences, paragraphs or pages.

On that note, how do you all feel about entering into a contest here on Literotica with someone who's just freely admitted to doing exactly that, while creating stories on an industrial basis?

@NoTalentHack, this is AutoCrit's review of a recent 9,000-word story of mine.

View attachment 2294396

Please don't think I'm saying I write better than you. I don't. However, I do use the software available so I can make my writing better. And yes, the goal I have is that those purchasing my stories will like what they read and return for more. I write for me, and there are many who can't stand what I write about. But hopefully, I'm building some followers at sales sites that will buy my stuff and, when I fall short, or even flat on my face, give me the benefit of the doubt that it was just a bad day.

That's great! I hope you're absolutely successful in that. I'm choosing to use the tool in a different way.

Also, @NoTalentHack, get is always considered a bad word along with that, big, bad, and, I guess, wolf. No kidding, not the last word. As in, "That big bad wolf just ate granny."

I know. I get the rules it's trying to enforce, the place they come from, and the reasoning behind them. I also understand that, for what I write, some of them are bunkum, especially inside of dialogue. People, normal people, use words like "big" and "bad" all the time. Choosing to not use them makes the dialogue look fake, as does obviosuly varying between adjectives just to not repeat themselves. People don't do that, unless they're trying to impress with their language or speaking skills.

To be fair, though, "big" is mostly used in this story in the context of "big black cock," which the POV is obsessing about, because he just had to watch his girlfriend get absolutely railed by one, and he's feeling a certain way about it.

My English teacher in high school and my creative writing teacher in college both drilled into me that I had to know the rules before I broke them, but once I understood them, to break them mercilessly if that's what serves the story. So I do.

To return to my anecdote about my time in tech support, I had the best stats of anyone on the floor, and it's because I broke one rule: I didn't use the required greeting, "Thank you for calling XXX. My name is YYY. Can I get your service tag number?" instead ending it with, "How can I help you today?" A small change, off the very carefully developed script that was intended to speed the customer through the process by letting me look up their computer int he system as quickly as possible.

And it fucking sucked.

I realized when you started with that, you told people they were just a cog. Which, you know, they were, but they didn't want to hear it. You asked them for that five digit serial number, and they got pissed that the first thing you did was demand information from them. It instantly made the relationship adversarial.

So I spent a week alternating between the two, and I found my stats on the days where I didn't use the "right" greeting were better by easily 10%. This type of support required the customer to do things they were uncomfortable doing, as far as even disassembling and reassembling their machine in some cases. Pissing them off made it harder to convince them to do those things later.

On the metric of "using the right greeting, " I got a straight up F. On everything else, I was S-tier before that term entered wider usage. I got dinged for breaking that one rule, and it was worth it. Breaking that rule made me better at what I did in every way that actually mattered, including customer satisfaction. That last one wasn't monitored, because it was impossible at the time, given the way the business was run. But I was the only person there that had a cube wall of letters from customers to my manager commending me, so I'm counting it.

I'll keep breaking rules when it makes sense to me. When that starts to impede my success, I'll pivot. I've done it before. And I'll obey the ones that help, too; I used to be just awful about pronoun starts, for example, but I've gotten much better. Except on the forums, apparently.

 

[NoTalentHack]

I use it as it's intended since it isn't AI for writing. It only evaluates your work compared to either a writer in a genre or the genre in general. It isn't something that makes a change but only suggests that something needs work. It just gives comparisons. The longer I've used it, the less I need to make changes. Again, it doesn't change words, rewrite anything, remove, or add to your work. It is not an AI writer.

Oh, that reminds me. I use the generic "Romance" category, since "Pretentious Porn" doesn't exist. Cowards.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't use anywhere near perfect grammar in the dialog unless the character is an English teacher or a rich pretentious snob. I use shortcut speech, as I've said before. I also don't use it for grammar. I don't even run its grammar checker.

That's great! I hope you're absolutely successful in that. I'm choosing to use the tool in a different way.


I know. I get the rules it's trying to enforce, the place they come from, and the reasoning behind them. I also understand that, for what I write, some of them are bunkum, especially inside of dialogue. People, normal people, use words like "big" and "bad" all the time. Choosing to not use them makes the dialogue look fake, as does obviosuly varying between adjectives just to not repeat themselves. People don't do that, unless they're trying to impress with their language or speaking skills.

To be fair, though, "big" is mostly used in this story in the context of "big black cock," which the POV is obsessing about, because he just had to watch his girlfriend get absolutely railed by one, and he's feeling a certain way about it.

My English teacher in high school and my creative writing teacher in college both drilled into me that I had to know the rules before I broke them, but once I understood them, to break them mercilessly if that's what serves the story. So I do.

To return to my anecdote about my time in tech support, I had the best stats of anyone on the floor, and it's because I broke one rule: I didn't use the required greeting, "Thank you for calling XXX. My name is YYY. Can I get your service tag number?" instead ending it with, "How can I help you today?" A small change, off the very carefully developed script that was intended to speed the customer through the process by letting me look up their computer int he system as quickly as possible.

And it fucking sucked.

I realized when you started with that, you told people they were just a cog. Which, you know, they were, but they didn't want to hear it. You asked them for that five digit serial number, and they got pissed that the first thing you did was demand information from them. It instantly made the relationship adversarial.

So I spent a week alternating between the two, and I found my stats on the days where I didn't use the "right" greeting were better by easily 10%. This type of support required the customer to do things they were uncomfortable doing, as far as even disassembling and reassembling their machine in some cases. Pissing them off made it harder to convince them to do those things later.

On the metric of "using the right greeting, " I got a straight up F. On everything else, I was S-tier before that term entered wider usage. I got dinged for breaking that one rule, and it was worth it. Breaking that rule made me better at what I did in every way that actually mattered, including customer satisfaction. That last one wasn't monitored, because it was impossible at the time, given the way the business was run. But I was the only person there that had a cube wall of letters from customers to my manager commending me, so I'm counting it.

I'll keep breaking rules when it makes sense to me. When that starts to impede my success, I'll pivot. I've done it before. And I'll obey the ones that help, too; I used to be just awful about pronoun starts, for example, but I've gotten much better. Except on the forums, apparently.

 

[MillieDynamite]

The one that was displayed was in Romance as well. I use Horror, Romance, and Mystery for comparisons. Sometimes, I use a specific writer.

Oh, that reminds me. I use the generic "Romance" category, since "Pretentious Porn" doesn't exist. Cowards.

 

[NoTalentHack]

The one that was displayed was in Romance as well. I use Horror, Romance, and Mystery for comparisons. Sometimes, I use a specific writer.

Another thing is that this is the only one of my stories I've run through there. It's my first time using it, since I'm evaluating it. It's possible another story would score better. Or maybe much worse!

ETA: Lol, yup, it hated some of the earlier ones even more!

 

[MillieDynamite]

I've read your stories and haven't found them to be bad! Not bad a'tall.

 

[NoTalentHack]

I've read your stories and haven't found them to be bad! Not bad a'tall.

Thanks, hon. I appreciate that. Your stuff's great.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Okay, now I really, really am going to get back to editing this thing. I've only got 24 hours left!

 

[DDX84]

Apparently, reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. I literally said above that I've NEVER let the software rewrite my stuff. What I've done is paid attention to where it said, "I don't like this, and here's why," weighted whether I thought it made sense in the context of the work, then made a change myself, if I felt it was correct.

I write because I like to write. I wrote for fun before I used any automated tools. My use of tools has streamlined my process, but also slowed it down, but it hasn't fundamentally changed what I've written. Even once the tools are good enough to fool any detector (which they will be eventually), I'll write because I like to write, and I still won't use tools to replace my own writing. But that's my line in the sand, and it's all going to be on the honor system.

Believing your claims and taking your word for it has got nothing to do with reading comprehension. I get that you're feeling the heat, but you're under the microscope because your work didn't just set off red flags, it almost melted the cup during two days of testing.

You posted your workflow for everyone to see. You posted excerpts of your content, which MillieDynamite commented on above with regards to their quality. Now, you've resorted to ranting about the effect of automation on the software development industry.

While that's beside the point, what you plainly don't understand is that your use of a raft of software tools runs dangerously close to breaking the terms and conditions of the website, if not an outright breach. You've acknowledged that your tools have contributed to your final drafts, which you published on Literotica as your own work.

You don't have to be a purist to be affronted by your use of those tools to make changes to your documents. As Voboy said, and I completely agree with, it's embarrassing to think that a writer here needs to rely on those tools to inform them about using certain words too often, or changing the content to increase your "style score". Especially one with the following you've built. It's simply not your work at that point.

Why can't you do it yourself? What's missing from your skillset that you have to cut corners like this? Why should you share a platform with those who don't need to take those shortcuts?

Every time you respond to your dialog box with 'accept', your software and AI tools are responsible for more and more of your final document.

But the wider issue still remains. Why in the name of God would you even want to use those tools? Moreover, even if you're perfectly content to continue using them, surely you can understand why there are those who object to your methods and want to see them explicitly banned in the terms and conditions? Don't you have any passion for creative writing?

In short, the OP lost 31 stories for breaking the website's rules on AI-content generation. When discovered, they lashed out at many forum users who wouldn't swallow their story without first scrutinising it. Calling people "gaslighters" and "sexist".

Here's the problem: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but you're trying to enforce rules around it.

Now, it seems that you want to follow suit. That's fine, I'm just a lurker, but I've been scrutinising your account of what's happened.

Literotica will make its own determination as to whether you've broken the rules like the OP. No one can say that you've cheated with 100% accuracy, but we don't have to. The balance of probabilities is the only evidential threshold that I, Literotica, Amazon or anywhere else can use on this issue. Literotica doesn't need to be 100% certain to find you guilty, and neither does anyone else.

I read your work. I tested your entire back catalogue across two days, with repeated scores above 80% and specific inconsistencies identified by the scanners where sections of your work routinely went from mediocre to flawless, then back again like it fell off a skyscraper. I read your disclosures on the forum about using the very software tools that Literotica wants to ban the use of. I read your acknowledgements that you routinely allow the software to contribute towards your final documents, which you upload to this website as your own work.

On the balance of probabilities, with your own disclosures in mind, I consider you to have cheated in the creation and uploading of content to Literotica.

But that's just me. The Literotica administrators will make their own determination, with their own methodology, and that will be the final word for everyone here.

Because I know where this is headed, and no one's going to give a shit by the time the next generation is writing their stories.

Yes they will. Good writers, great writers will give a shit. Part of the reason they're the good and the great is they have respect for both the creative process and the art form itself. They have standards. Meanwhile, it's evident from your disclosures and attitude that you've got none.

Just because you "don't give a shit" and slam the 'accept' button, doesn't mean that there won't be those of us who are appalled by those methods.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Self-righteous drivel deleted

Okay. Well, fuck you, too. Have a nice night.

As to Literotica and the rest, I await with bated breath the moment I get a rejection. Y'all will be the first to know.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Ok here's a challenge for any authors who HAVENT yet had a story rejected for possible use of AI. Write a story, without using any assistive tools (except spellcheck), that gets rejected as a false positive for AI. Then come back here and tell us how you managed to do it.

I don't use anything in general. I'm working on finishing some stories I started and forgot about years ago, so we'll see.

 

[NoTalentHack]

you tested every story of his over 2 days?!?! I think the green eyed monster is just a little bit obsessed lol. And now I think we know who has time to report 60 some stories here. Question for you, you say op's stories got pulled for ai and you have been screaming about this guy's so why are his still up? I mean we know you reported them lol. That must really piss you off that his are still here. I mean you knocked op out of the contest, who is next on your list?

View attachment 2294423

Don't worry. They don't let him have any bullets in his gun. "Gotta nip it in the bud, Laurel!"

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Have you ever actually checked what "looking like AI" means? It's pretty simple. Just make sure your style differs from that. And if it doesn't, change it. You really don't need to be too precious about "Your style". Eveybody changes styles over time anyway.

Adapt by changing your writing style to not get accussed of using something that is adaptable and can change its writing style. Got it.

 

[Voboy]

I'm only speaking for myself; it's not my place to condemn anyone here. I'm no arbiter of what does or does not "belong" on this site, but I do have a definite bias and I've stated it many, many times over the years: it's my belief (and it doesn't have to be everyone's!) that ethical, honorable writers of any kind of creative writing conceive of, record, consider, edit, and finalize every word and phrase all by themselves. That's a purist take, I'll readily admit, but it's the only way I've ever found satisfaction while writing.

That doesn't have to be the perfect recipe for all, but it's where I'm coming from whenever I consider these issues.

From the example @NoTalentHack posted, I wouldn't consider that to be "passing off AI as his own work" at all. It's his writing, the AI is only providing analysis and suggestions.

Which are not his. Therefore, it isn't his work. It's the AI's.

Even if he were to accept a suggested rewrite, IMO that's not much different from accepting spellcheck's suggested fix of a typo, or clicking a word to bring up a built-in thesaurus and changing it to a synonym, or using autocomplete when typing on a phone: the choice is made by the writer, the software just streamlines the task by proposing alternatives.

Perhaps. I don't use any of those, either. Any mistakes found in my stories are MINE, and any mistakes not found? I caught those and fixed them. Again, to me, that's an essential component of calling oneself a writer: that you understand how language should express ideas, learn how to make that language stronger, and use your native skills and intelligence to do just that.

Sure, if someone blindly applies AI suggestions en masse without review or critical consideration, then they are no longer actively engaged in the writing—much as if they blindly accept edits by an editor: they're abdicating the role of author to a co-author. I thought the interesting part of his post was how it showed that that's not how these tools are usefully employed.

As I've posted already, the only times I've used an editor are when a publisher was paying me for my work and then putting their own name on the finished work along with mine. I felt that entitled them to skin in the game, as it were. It would never occur to me to use an editor on anything I claimed to be solely mine.

I just want to admit my bias, and I hope that this might go some way toward explaining why I feel like some people "just don't get it." It would irk me, to be frank, if a writer whose piece was 50, or 40, or 30, or even 1 percent AI-written, won a contest over a writer whose piece was 100% human-written. Just my opinion.

All that said? I'm no hall monitor. I've never reported any piece on here, for any reason, and I doubt I ever would.

 

[alohadave]

Stuff

Do you use an editor, a beta reader, a sensitivity reader? By your logic, you are no longer the sole author because they are no longer just your words. My latest upload had some parts that I changed because of the awesome feedback I received. Should that not be considered my work any more?

This obsession with being the only one to pick the words and phrases is a little bit much. Writers are in the business of telling stories, using whatever method works for them.

What about collaborative works? Are they less acceptable because more than one person wrote them?

This idea that writing is some noble pursuit that must be done one way only is called gatekeeping. You seek to restrict the form and expression of writing to only what you deem acceptable.

Also, if you are able to use tools to quantify their work, then you really have no moral high ground in this argument. If you are going to say unequivocally that their work must be the sole creation of their brain, then your analysis must be the sole effort of your brain with no assistance from any tools. Either you can do the analysis yourself or you are cheating. Do you see how that works?

 

[SimonDoom]

It would never occur to me to use an editor on anything I claimed to be solely mine.

I admire your rectitude on this point, but you do realize that this view is not the industry standard, right? Most published authors work with editors who make suggestions, and the editors do not get credit as authors. That's perfectly normal and acceptable. It doesn't violate any widely accepted norm.

This is a gray area, in my opinion. There's nothing wrong, IMO, with working with editors to help improve one's draft, but submitting the final draft in one's own name. This is standard practice. So it seems to me there's nothing wrong with putting an AI editor in place of a human one to serve the same purpose. The question becomes one of degree. I use various grammar and spell check tools which make recommendations, but I go through them one by one to decide whether to accept them. There is some point at which I would not be willing, as a matter of honor, to claim that a text extensively changed by an AI was mine. But I'm not exactly sure what that point is.

 

[Voboy]

are you and DDX84 the same person lolol Maybe "you" wouldn't report a story but "they" would especially if it is in a contest with you, right?

Not just no, but hell no. In the strongest possible terms, no. I speak for myself, and I always have. As would be apparent to most people who'd been reading my posts since before, say, December of 2023.

I think reporting stories is fundamentally weaselly, and I know firsthand that it's sometimes done for petty reasons. I've had it done to me. I was MOST displeased.

Do you use an editor, a beta reader, a sensitivity reader? By your logic, you are no longer the sole author because they are no longer just your words. My latest upload had some parts that I changed because of the awesome feedback I received. Should that not be considered my work any more?

This obsession with being the only one to pick the words and phrases is a little bit much. Writers are in the business of telling stories, using whatever method works for them.

What about collaborative works? Are they less acceptable because more than one person wrote them?

This idea that writing is some noble pursuit that must be done one way only is called gatekeeping. You seek to restrict the form and expression of writing to only what you deem acceptable.

Also, if you are able to use tools to quantify their work, then you really have no moral high ground in this argument. If you are going to say unequivocally that their work must be the sole creation of their brain, then your analysis must be the sole effort of your brain with no assistance from any tools. Either you can do the analysis yourself or you are cheating. Do you see how that works?

Here's my thought.

People who use beta-readers, by and large, are open about it. They credit those beta-readers in forewords/authors' notes, and they make their appreciation clear. Well and good; I think that's ethical, and it's good karma besides.

Some here are claiming that using an AI is no different from using a beta-reader. Again, it's a point I'm willing to consider; I'd never assume everyone thinks like me.

BUT! Would it not be ethical to acknowledge the AI's assistance in an author's note, in much the same way a writer would acknowledge the beta-reader's assistance? Why, I wonder, does it occur to writers who use such aids to disclose human assistance to their readers, and not digital assistance?

I'm curious whether any of you who think it's appropriate to use AI have any strong ideas about admitting it to your readers.

 

[Voboy]

I admire your rectitude on this point, but you do realize that this view is not the industry standard, right?

Absolutely. I think I touched on that already. When I've written commercially, I've accepted editorial suggestions myself because someone else was putting reputation and money on the line along with me.

 

[alohadave]

I'm curious whether any of you who think it's appropriate to use AI have any strong ideas about admitting it to your readers.

I have a story that used AI. I disclosed it to Laurel when I submitted it, and she accepted it. It's not something that I've pointed out to readers, though I have stated it here in the forum once or twice.

If she decides now that it's no longer acceptable, I will be disappointed but I will accept it.

The issue I'm more concerned about is the ambiguity of what is considered AI for new submissions. My case was that I explicitly chose to use AI for a part that I felt it could do better than I could. I don't consider grammar checkers and wording suggestions to be in the same league as that, but that is my personal opinion.

 

[Voboy]

I'm just saying you two are making a lot of the same arguments in similar ways and you're attacking the same people who happen to be in a contest with you so yeah it's just a curious thing but I am glad you cleared that up

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" quote, too. It doesn't mean I am Teddy Roosevelt.

I know the internet has conditioned us all to assume disagreement, but sometimes? I agree with other posters. I have no qualms about saying so. I'm certainly being careful about my tone; I don't think I'm "attacking" anyone. On the contrary. I'm taking pains to point out that others are more than free to disagree with me, and I'm honest when I say I'm willing to consider their views.

 

[Voboy]

also you were really pissed at op for calling you a sexist gaslighter right? Now this DDX84 person is bringing that up again talking about the op calling people sexist gaslighters so it just gets curiouser and curiouser. I mean fine if you're both pissed about that but you're also both pissed about what you think is nth using ai. He wasn't ddx's original target but once he accidentally got brought into this thread, ddx piled on him quick and you were really quick to chime in. Weird

Lol.

Should I not be "really pissed" about being insulted? Most people here don't stoop to ad-hominems. When they do, they find me similarly wrathful. I certainly don't care for the OP, and I'd tell them that to their face quite happily.

Believe what you wish. I'm certainly not interested in convincing you of anything.

 

[Voboy]

yeah but ddx is really insulted for you too, am I right?

Believe what you wish. I'm certainly not interested in convincing you of anything.

 

[DDX84]

I'm only speaking for myself; it's not my place to condemn anyone here. I'm no arbiter of what does or does not "belong" on this site, but I do have a definite bias and I've stated it many, many times over the years: it's my belief (and it doesn't have to be everyone's!) that ethical, honorable writers of any kind of creative writing conceive of, record, consider, edit, and finalize every word and phrase all by themselves. That's a purist take, I'll readily admit, but it's the only way I've ever found satisfaction while writing.

That doesn't have to be the perfect recipe for all, but it's where I'm coming from whenever I consider these issues.

Which are not his. Therefore, it isn't his work. It's the AI's.

Perhaps. I don't use any of those, either. Any mistakes found in my stories are MINE, and any mistakes not found? I caught those and fixed them. Again, to me, that's an essential component of calling oneself a writer: that you understand how language should express ideas, learn how to make that language stronger, and use your native skills and intelligence to do just that.

As I've posted already, the only times I've used an editor are when a publisher was paying me for my work and then putting their own name on the finished work along with mine. I felt that entitled them to skin in the game, as it were. It would never occur to me to use an editor on anything I claimed to be solely mine.

I just want to admit my bias, and I hope that this might go some way toward explaining why I feel like some people "just don't get it." It would irk me, to be frank, if a writer whose piece was 50, or 40, or 30, or even 1 percent AI-written, won a contest over a writer whose piece was 100% human-written. Just my opinion.

Bravo.

I've lurked here for a number of years and I'm astounded that this view, and this respect for the creative writing process, isn't shared and upheld by every member of this forum.

Do you use an editor, a beta reader, a sensitivity reader? By your logic, you are no longer the sole author because they are no longer just your words.

No, I don't.

However, the use of an editor is commonplace within literature. The role of an editor isn't to write the piece for you, Dave.

If an editor told you that, for example, your work was too dry and needed to be more interpretative, they send you on your way to make the changes yourself.

Comparing AI-content generation to the use of an editor is a false equivalency, and a pretty obvious one. Right up there with the bizarre claim that it's just as bad as using a word processor or a typewriter.

What about collaborative works? Are they less acceptable because more than one person wrote them?

Standard practice is to share credit, which is perfectly fine. Try publishing a collaborative piece without sharing that credit and see what happens.

This idea that writing is some noble pursuit that must be done one way only is called gatekeeping. You seek to restrict the form and expression of writing to only what you deem acceptable.

No, it's not. You're confusing gatekeeping with standards and editorial guidelines. Every website, every publisher will set their own standards in terms of what they expect from a contributor. Failing to adhere to those standards will see the publisher refuse to host the piece of work, or remove the content if it's already online.

Here, at Literotica, they don't want AI to generate content and for software tools to contribute to the work that's submitted here. That's it.

The OP of this thread is not the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Seeing as the two-day old account shares the OP's fanatical interest in the contests held on this website, it's pretty clear where that opinion's coming from.

 

[KeithD]

Do you use an editor, a beta reader, a sensitivity reader? By your logic, you are no longer the sole author because they are no longer just your words.

A professional editor won't be changing words all on his/her own. They'll question word usage and maybe even suggest better wording, but it will be left to the author to make final choices--retaining responsibility and author's voice.