AI rejections: would this help, hurt, or do nothing?

[intim8]

I'm about to post a new story, should be tomorrow, and I guess all these AI rejection threads have me paranoid. I was thinking of adding the following to the Admin note in the submission:

AI was not used in any way to write this story. I typed each and every word myself entirely from my own brain. I use Grammarly's "Correctness" feature only, and accept or reject each suggestion individually.

Any chance this would help? Would it hurt? Would it cause Lauren undo hardship? Or would it accomplish exactly nothing?

Yeah, I know, that's just what an AI would say....

 

[RejectReality]

I wouldn't even consider it for the initial submission. Coming out of the gate with it just looks sketchy, and if whatever program they're using to "check" stories for AI comes back borderline, that could push it over the border.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I'm about to post a new story, should be tomorrow, and I guess all these AI rejection threads have me paranoid.

Put some of your work through an AI detector like this one.
https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/
And see how it comes out. That way you know where you stand before you submit.

 

[RejectReality]

Put some of your work through an AI detector like this one.
https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/
And see how it comes out. That way you know where you stand before you submit.

No you don't.

There's absolutely nothing resembling consistency between the umpteen so-called AI checkers out there. You can run the same passage through five apps and get five wildly different evaluations. If that isn't the one Lit's using, running your work through it tells you zip. Zilch. Nada. Bumpkis.

 

[Rob_Royale]

No you don't.

There's absolutely nothing resembling consistency between the umpteen so-called AI checkers out there. You can run the same passage through five apps and get five wildly different evaluations. If that isn't the one Lit's using, running your work through it tells you zip. Zilch. Nada. Bumpkis.

It might not be definitive, but it's better than just going in blind. If you score a high percentage of being human-written, it's probably gonna be fine when it's submitted. I've never scored lower than 93% on that website and never had a story kicked back.

 

[intim8]

it's better than just going in blind.

I'm not going in blind. I know I wrote it. The thing that seems unknowable is what the AI that thinks it knows its own kind will say.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm not going in blind. I know I wrote it. The thing that seems unknowable is what the AI that thinks it knows its own kind will say.

Why draw attention to yourself? You've heard the expression, surely, "He who protests too much..."?

Your proposed note comes across as either smart arse or defensive. It's not going to affect whatever process Laurel puts the text through, so why bother?

 

[RejectReality]

It might not be definitive, but it's better than just going in blind. If you score a high percentage of being human-written, it's probably gonna be fine when it's submitted. I've never scored lower than 93% on that website and never had a story kicked back.

If you've never had a story kicked back for AI, your experience with that particular "checker" is irrelevant.

If you had one that scored questionable and got kicked back, then the ones that scored as human and get approved become relevant data points. If you have one scored as human and it gets kicked back, then it's evidence the tool is useless.

Absent any indication of whether it predicts Lit rejections, it's a complete waste of time.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Absent any indication of whether it predicts Lit rejections, it's a complete waste of time.

Apparently, a lot like trying to help someone on a forum. Cuz, there's always some know-it-all who feels it's his job to shout you down. Don't bother with your righteous indignation reply, I won't be coming back to this thread, it's a complete waste of time. Peace.

 

[Andi_Chase]

I'm not going in blind. I know I wrote it. The thing that seems unknowable is what the AI that thinks it knows its own kind will say.

bruh, the point is the Laurel doesn't know that. Just don't bother with Grammarly, it's not even useful.

 

[intim8]

Just don't bother with Grammarly, it's not even useful.

My experience differs, but I still reject half their suggestions. They're just plaln wrong. The ones they are right on are very useful.

 

[intim8]

So y'all have convinced me that the OP was a bad idea. My excuse is that it was late, and I was tired and a little frustrated.

 

[EmilyMiller]

So y'all have convinced me that the OP was a bad idea. My excuse is that it was late, and I was tired and a little frustrated.

Masturbation is a better answer, hun.

Emily

 

[Djmac1031]

Late to the party as usual.

My answer would be: have you been rejected for suspicion of AI use before?

If not, I wouldn't sweat it.