AwkwardMD AI Rejection Help Desk

[dmallord]

Forgive me if I'm making any unwarranted assumptions, but reading between the lines, it sounds like there might be a change to your workflow involving your writing software and writing tools...

No need to read between the lines. I've acknowledged the changes in tools and how I've used them. Other than accepting spelling or tense agreement, I've relied on my own steam. I've noted that Grammarly moved from its general purpose suggestions to a beligerant AI writing intervention. I've rejected those for the most part. Once in a very great while, I accept a rewrite of a sentence that sounded more sensical, but that's not even 1% of what I put into the stories on my own.

One hopes writing workflow evolves to the betterment of story crafting. With the help of a good lit editor, I've learned to adjust punctuation and sharpen vocabulary uses particularly, on homophones etc. At first, I wasn't aware of those pesky things.

I've used Grammarly for about three years now. The paid version. I've seen it mature and grew better. Lately, I've noticed the pushiness it has to attempt changes. I'm not allowing those. In the last three years, I've posted several stories without issues, until now. I'm guessing Lit's AI version has also matured and is more bellicose than before as well.

Lit says stories, photos, and illustrations must be an author's original creations. It accepts that those are true statements when a person submits them. Here, even when a person submits a statement about originalism in writing regarding AI, it's rejected. A double standard.

Laurel's rejection letter said that the story must be 'mostly human written' and the use of tools for assistance in spelling, etc are allowed. What is not allowed is the use of AI to write the story. I follow that logic and write in that vein. It's me at my Mac Pro keyboard, the rhythmic tick of the grandfather clock, and an old eighty-six-year-old mind on the wane at work. Even if Awkward or Lit thinks differently.

 

[dmallord]

What I meant was that I would have blocked you, specifically, from participating here, because you persist in bad faith interpretations.

You would block someone who doesn't agree with you. That's your take on my offering commentary that your mind wants to label as bad-faith interpretations. That's percisely why I said it is a good thing you are not in charge of people's opinions and who gets to express what in the forum. You sound like Donald Trump's childish tantrum when someone disagrees with him.

Like this one.

In a different post, someone recently counted 2,125 publications on the Lit story side over a 6 day period (I think it was @Actingup ) Allowing for multiple postings from a handful of authors, let's get real conservative and round all the way down to 1,500 individual authors whose submissions went through just fine.

In the last two weeks, I've got you and and Pinkie3_14. 2 against 3000. This is your idea of a big problem?

Problems are 'big' when you get rejected. That's upfront in your face, personal, and thus is a big deal. There are others who spoke about this across multiple topics and in my reading some of those, they thought it was a big deal. It's not big because of statistics, Awk. I didn't complain that 1,500 others got posted and I didn't. I didn't wirte anything like that.

Now, I know there are more rejections than show up in this thread, but I can only operate on the information in front of me. There might have been 5 more I got rejected threads in the AH over that time period. More than one author always pipes up. Assuming no overlap we'll throw 10 more authors onto the pile.

Conjecture and an unscientific basis approach. You don't have data, just an assumption.

Now it's 12 vs 3000. That's over two orders of magnitude (and remember, that 1500 in one week is me rounding way, way down) in difference. A staggaring disproportion no matter how you slice it.

Now I suspect it's way more. We only hear about rejections from authors who come here to say anything. I bet the real number for a period like this between 50-100. At this point there's already so many assumptions being made that trying to guess why only 12 out of 100 people behave a certain way is not only pointless, but impossible. I don’t feel comfortable making any guesses about that except to put those numbers next to each other, explain how I got there, and let them stand for themselves.

They don't stand up very well. It's not about numbers. It's personal rejections that you don't get.

But you do. You only see how this affects you. Did you even try to grasp the scope here before confidently asserting how bad it is? You feel very comfortable letting your bias, as someone who has received a rejection and who sees plenty of threads talking about it (without interrogating how old some of those posts and responses are), take the wheel and assume the problem is much more widespread than it is because then it's not your problem. Then you're the victim.

Don't think that belittling me makes any of this relevant to a rejection letter based upon alleged AI influences. Or that I confidently am wrong in saying it is a pervasive lit problem because you want statistics to back you up. That's not relevant. An again, you are attacking me personally for expressing a viewpoint, that you don't agree with in claiming I am approaching this commentary as a victim.

That's why you created this thread to discuss rejections because it was a prevenlant topic. If it wasn't and only a handful of biased individuals then you obviously wholdn't have started a threat about 'much ado about nothing.'

I’m not claiming the issue is universal. I’m saying it’s significant enough that writers are talking about it, editors are acknowledging it, and submission guidelines are being rewritten because of it. That alone warrants a serious conversation, not the assumption that I’m too biased to understand the “scope.”

You’re trying to recast this as my personal grievance so you don’t have to address the broader pattern. I’m not the one narrowing the discussion—you are.

And let's be clear. You are. Of callous business practices by Microsoft, and of predatory AI creep by Microsoft and Grammarly. They have fed you a drug, and now you don't know how to not be hooked on it. You don't know how to write a sentence without someone else telling you how to do it. Think about that. That's not me saying that, it's what you have said about yourself.

You're too steeped in your own biases. It shows preeminently in comparing MS and AI with being hooked on drugs. Personally, given your tone and attack mode, I think you need help, and not with writing.

I can write a sentence without someone telling me how to. 'Think about that' is a stupid slam. And it is definitely not something that I said about myself.

Your personal attack has gone far afield from the topic.

Literotica, as a platform, has limited options to stop from becoming infested by slop. What they are doing is not a perfect system. There's no such thing.

No one has claimed there is a perfect system have they? Sure, having a monitoring system is fine. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to have remedies when it fails. And writers here, no matter the quantities of them, have pointed that out and so far, Lit has not addressed a mechanism for that in a coherently stated policy have they?

I would direct you, again, to the initial post of this thread, because everything you seem to want from me, I was very clear I would not do. I will not be talking about tips or tricks for successful publication, because those amount to shortcuts around an AI detector whose purpose I believe in. I will not be telling you how it works.

Then the tread serves not purpose and only antagonizes others if you offer no help.

All that being said, and despite your years now of passive aggression toward me, I am sorry this is affecting you.

I've several thousand posts, and among those, I've come across you once or twice in five years. That's a very small percentage, statistically speaking so that you claim it is some passive aggression toward you personally is not true. [See how my statistics don't matter? You still assert that I'm attacking you.] Your claim in bold is ludicrous.

Sugar, don't worry about being sorry and how your words affect me. I've bigger problems with an appointment with death knocking at my door than any dialog here with you.

What you have described is using assistance tools, like a cane, and now Lit has a sign up saying "No canes allowed inside our fancy building where all the cool people are hanging out." That sucks, and I have sympathy. Because I'm a human being.

I've acknowledged using Grammarly in the manner Lit has suggested it could be used. Not a cane. Thank you for acknowledging that you are a human being. Me too. But this thread sounds more like an AI created it.

I think you forget that sometimes.

Future posts like this, that aren't on topic, I will be asking a moderator to simply delete. This is a serious topic and it helps no one to pad out a resource with drama.

Sugar... any moderator reading this thread can clearly see you've made the drama and are in full attack mode. The topic may be serious, but you are not treating it as such.

We would all be better off asking a moderator to delete the thread and let a more cooler head take up the reins. Again, my opinion, and now back to herding cats.