An explanation of AI rejection from Laurel

[nice90sguy]

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/ai-allegations-thread.1599778/post-97925170

 

[EmilyMiller]

You could also share how she pulled and rejected 31 of mine because they were reported by readers. Anyone interested in reading that correspondence, it's in the same thread.

The way you have behaved to multiple people here about it, I doubt anyone cares anymore. You reap what you sow.

Em

 

[MillieDynamite]

Grammarly and Word continually want to add "was" or another additional verb to a perfectly good verb as a modifier, intensifier, or clarifier. Normally, I don't allow it to add was, it's a bad word (or other additional verbs). If I'd wanted it there, I would have put it there. It often, very often, wants to move my opening clause to an ending clause or vice versa. I don't let it. Again, if that's what I wanted, I would have written it that way. If I missed a comma or added one where it doesn't think it's needed, it wants it changed. That I usually listen to both of them, but if I decide I like the comma it either becomes an EM dash or stays a comma.

If you let Grammarly or Word have their way, they'll rewrite a good quarter of all your work. Then it isn't your work anymore. Basic editing shouldn't change your style. However, allowing software editors to change how you write dulls it down and takes away your distinctive voice. One writer in a writing group I belong to, claims she speaks and writes with perfect grammar. That's bullshit. I've read her work. But if you write that way, it will be boring.
More often than not, software Grammar checkers eliminate things like, More often than not, nevertheless, from my viewpoint, from her viewpoint, into something with less flare in favor of some simpler way of saying it or worse, removing the clarity of what you've written for the brevity of expression. To be truthful, to tell the truth, is changed to honestly, and so forth and so on (which, given the AIs' choices, would also be removed), dulling down, dumbing down, or cutting to the point, where it isn't how normal people naturally speak.

Yes, I can see how that would be a problem. But good God, the 60% is saying something more than a Grammarly issue. I'm not saying you're using AI, @MouringWabler; that's a lot of percentage points.

 

[AG31]

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/ai-allegations-thread.1599778/post-97925170

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Grammarly and Word continually want to add "was" or another additional verb to a perfectly good verb as a modifier, intensifier, or clarifier. Normally, I don't allow it to add was, it's a bad word (or other additional verbs). If I'd wanted it there, I would have put it there. It often, very often, wants to move my opening clause to an ending clause or vice versa. I don't let it. Again, if that's what I wanted, I would have written it that way. If I missed a comma or added one where it doesn't think it's needed, it wants it changed. That I usually listen to both of them, but if I decide I like the comma it either becomes an EM dash or stays a comma.

If you let Grammarly or Word have their way, they'll rewrite a good quarter of all your work. Then it isn't your work anymore. Basic editing shouldn't change your style. However, allowing software editors to change how you write dulls it down and takes away your distinctive voice. One writer in a writing group I belong to, claims she speaks and writes with perfect grammar. That's bullshit. I've read her work. But if you write that way, it will be boring.
More often than not, software Grammar checkers eliminate things like, More often than not, nevertheless, from my viewpoint, from her viewpoint, into something with less flare in favor of some simpler way of saying it or worse, removing the clarity of what you've written for the brevity of expression. To be truthful, to tell the truth, is changed to honestly, and so forth and so on (which, given the AIs' choices, would also be removed), dulling down, dumbing down, or cutting to the point, where it isn't how normal people naturally speak.

Yes, I can see how that would be a problem. But good God, the 60% is saying something more than a Grammarly issue. I'm not saying you're using AI, @MouringWabler; that's a lot of percentage points.

Great point. That software is really designed for business use where writing should be straight to the point and not for more artistic pursuits.