How many of us have actually been rejected for AI reasons?

[AG31]

but some applying some helpful advice a user shared with me got it through.

Can you give us some examples of helpful advice?

 

[Bassytian]

I’ve seen this advice posted since so it’s no huge secret, but I was told to ask Laurel to personally review the story in the Author’s Notes section. I was also told that seems to work almost 100% of the time.

 

[mirafrida]

Interesting article on "AI slop" in NYMag if anyone happens to get that.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-generated-content-internet-online-slop-spam.html

Nothing really new, but it talks about the struggles of small editorial shops to deal with the deluge of crap. As such, may serve to further flesh out the "other side of the story," i.e. what the mods here are probably dealing with that leads to these frustrations...

 

[AG31]

Interesting article on "AI slop" in NYMag if anyone happens to get that.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-generated-content-internet-online-slop-spam.html

Nothing really new, but it talks about the struggles of small editorial shops to deal with the deluge of crap. As such, may serve to further flesh out the "other side of the story," i.e. what the mods here are probably dealing with that leads to these frustrations...

Thanks for this. It answers the question I posted a while ago,"What's going on here." What's going on here is "slop." It also gives me a lot more sympathy for the admins' need to control AI generated stories, lest Literotica.com drown in slop.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

...[lest] Literotica.com drown in slop.

I, for one, would love to see Lit just put in quality checks. If it is AI written but is still good, I'd be happy to read it. If it is human written but is garbage, I'd rather not see it.

 

[AG31]

I, for one, would love to see Lit just put in quality checks. If it is AI written but is still good, I'd be happy to read it. If it is human written but is garbage, I'd rather not see it.

That thought has crossed my mind. If it is quality work (which I don't think AI is capable of yet), why not read it? But I don't think I'd want Literotica to be curated based on someone's idea of "quality." Erotica, in my opinion, is in the business of pushing people's buttons, and that very often has nothing to do with literary quality.

I guess I'm saying that I'm interested in non-quality human stories (they often have that elusive trait of "authenticity," but I'm not interested in AI non-quality stories.... Well.... if it learned to generate tha air of authenticity???? Hmm....

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I, for one, would love to see Lit just put in quality checks. If it is AI written but is still good, I'd be happy to read it. If it is human written but is garbage, I'd rather not see it.

As flawed and abused as the voting system and view count are, they serve the same purpose. As a general rule, votes and views can been seen as indicators of quality and are based on a broader base than a single person or small committee of people that may or may not agree with your or my opinion. If views and votes aren't' good enough, then we have to ask who decides and by what metrics. The only way for any single person to get a perfect rating would be for them to read every story posted. Then they'd know. I'm betting your opinion on any given story will differ from mine, so where does that leave us?

 

[Djmac1031]

I had it happen a grand total of one time.

I resubmitted it immediately with a note explaining it wasn't AI and it was approved without edit.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

If views and votes aren't' good enough, then we have to ask who decides and by what metrics....I'm betting your opinion on any given story will differ from mine, so where does that leave us?

I disagree. Even with stories that I don't care for, quality is apparent. Grammar, punctuation, storytelling. Easy to detect in the first few paragraphs. I might still think it a poor story, but I think both you and I can tell if it was written well.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I disagree. Even with stories that I don't care for, quality is apparent. Grammar, punctuation, storytelling. Easy to detect in the first few paragraphs. I might still think it a poor story, but I think both you and I can tell if it was written well.

But you don't... You said it yourself. "I might still think it a poor story, but I think both you and I can tell if it was written well."

Grammar and punctuation, the things that indicate a 'well-written' story, can be codified. Tools like Grammarly and ProWriting Aide prove that. Storytelling is more ambiguous. What makes a 'good story' is even more so, and its there that our opinions will diverge. Stories can be 'good' without proper grammar and punctuation, so I'd offer it's the storytelling that really matters, and what you consider a poor story, I may love. There's the rub. That's where the problem with any quality check would come into play. We both said it. Grammar and punctuation, the things that can be codified, don't make a story good. It's the storytelling that does that and storytelling is as individual as it is subjective, especially to the reader.

A cursory scan of your stories and favorites tells me we don't like the same things. Which one of us is more qualified to be the quality checker?

 

[StillStunned]

Grammar and punctuation, the things that indicate a 'well-written' story, can be codified.

I'd say that grammar and punctuation are tools for writing, but beyond a basic level have little to do with "well-written". That's more about how the words fit together, how one sentence leads to the next, how the sentences form a cohesive paragraph. How the sounds of the words and the rhythm of the sentences enhance the images that they create, how themes and imagery are woven into the paragraphs to foreshadow or echo events elsewhere in the story. How a line of dialogue can conjure up a character in the reader's mind, and how writers can use all these elements to keep the reader's eyes going forward, word by word, sentence by sentence, until the story reaches a satisfying conclusion where everything comes together, and the reader can look back and say, "Yes, this all made sense."

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I'd say that grammar and punctuation are tools for writing, but beyond a basic level have little to do with "well-written". That's more about how the words fit together, how one sentence leads to the next, how the sentences form a cohesive paragraph. How the sounds of the words and the rhythm of the sentences enhance the images that they create, how themes and imagery are woven into the paragraphs to foreshadow or echo events elsewhere in the story. How a line of dialogue can conjure up a character in the reader's mind, and how writers can use all these elements to keep the reader's eyes going forward, word by word, sentence by sentence, until the story reaches a satisfying conclusion where everything comes together, and the reader can look back and say, "Yes, this all made sense."

There is technically well-written and stylistically well-written. In the context of my post and in response to @astuffedshirt_perv, well-written is implied to be the technical interpretation. Writing style is referred to as storytelling.

The fact that we are having this discussion supports my hypothesis that having a quality check on stories would be problematic at best. Obviously, the three of us can't even agree on what quality means and what metrics should be used to determine said quality.

 

[jhealy55]

Yep Stunned.

I think that's you identify the key points and it exposes the limitations of AI. Doesn't flow in a way that reads organically "human". Doesn't understand how the flavor of word choice affects the result in the same way that finding a word that fits grammatically will.

Just as the ratings system seems equally concerned with "did I find this sexually exciting/satisfying?" as it is with what we are loosely calling "storytelling" here.

I don't think that improves any time soon and there is mounting evidence that a feedback loop of AI ingesting its own results will cause a whole new set of issues.

You can map a ratio perfect version of the human face to make something statistically likely to be perceived as 'beautiful' by a lot of people, but most guys will still opt for the second runner up in a wet t shirt contest because desirable doesn't always equate to technically perfect.

Part of what makes 'ditzy' so attractive to men is the underlying hope that they have a better chance of getting that person in bed. Jennifer Tilly seems to be a pretty bright lady by conventional measure, but she had a pretty good run, and punched way above any physical flaws vs other women in Hollywood, because she understood the dynamic of what many men respond to and adjusted her presentation accordingly.

I don't see any evidence that AI can recognize, transfer or synthesize that effect as it ingests human work. Ironically, these are all creative markers of intelligence in humans.

 

[StillStunned]

There is technically well-written and stylistically well-written. In the context of my post and in response to @astuffedshirt_perv, well-written is implied to be the technical interpretation. Writing style is referred to as storytelling.

I think you can also spot AI writing from the lack of the features I mentioned, though. A real person does those things without thinking, because language and thought are intrinsically linked for us. Not everyone does it to the same level, or with the same skill, but AI doesn't do it at all - or if does, it gets it wrong.

(Remember the discussion in the "Rip me to shreds" thread, where someone had AI rewrite a snippet of mine? I referred to a leather leash slithering across someone's arm, and AI added "coiled like a snake", because snakes slither, and they're coiled, but it doesn't realise that a snake can't do both at the same time.)

AI text is like a pile of rocks, compared with a drystone wall. It contains all the elements, but it can't make them fit together properly.

The fact that we are having this discussion supports my hypothesis that having a quality check on stories would be problematic at best. Obviously, the three of us can't even agree on what quality means and what metrics should be used to determine said quality.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I had my first rejection last week. I pulled it because I'm unsure, I want to go through it to figure out what's causing it.

 

[AG31]

I had my first rejection last week. I pulled it because I'm unsure, I want to go through it to figure out what's causing it.

It's experiences like this (long time, relatively prolific writer getting flagged for AI) that make me reluctant to re-submit my stories with touch-ups. I'm afraid that suddenly one will get flagged for AI and I won't be able to get it re-published.

 

[Jakesfunrod]

Hi all.

New to Literotica, but have always loved to write. My first story was published with no issues, but my follow-up story has been rejected mutlple times for "AI" issues. I've had it reviewed by a volunteer editor here and independently verified through Quillbot as being 100% human written, but it is still being rejected here. The rejection, to me, is a slap in the face, knowing that I personally wrote every word.

I share others' frustrations about not knowing what to "fix" in our human written stories. My second story has been waiting for another review for almost 3 weeks now, and while I wait and cringe for yet another rejection, I am currently working on a third story with plans for many more. But if the AI issue continues to be a barrier, I don't know how long I'll continue with this site.

Thanks for the opportunity to share, and I welcome any feedback or thoughts on this topic.

- Jake

 

[LonRivers]

I have not yet. I have used Grammarly before, but I copy what it corrects, and paste it back into MS Word and I go from there. People have been dinged for using AI based spelling and grammar programs like Grammarly.

 

[MillieDynamite]

My story has been for sale for months. It isn't unusual for me to change them a bit before here, but not because of AI fears. I think the most I've seen on any check of a random 5000 words was 97% human, and if three percent inside the rest of the work checks out as 100% human, I'm not sure I want to find out what needs to be changed to satisfy them. Of course, I'm not wasting my money monthly on an AI checker that gets more down and dirty for publishing work at a free site.

It's experiences like this (long time, relatively prolific writer getting flagged for AI) that make me reluctant to re-submit my stories with touch-ups. I'm afraid that suddenly one will get flagged for AI and I won't be able to get it re-published.

 

[Codoc24]

I've had the same story rejected twice so I didn't waste any more time on that particular story and I haven't submitted any other story since then.

 

[BDSMGromit]

I had a story rejected due to AI. While the story was my work, AI rewrote some paragraphs for a better flow, so technically, I used too much AI. I set Grammarly to not re-write text, just to check grammar; it often suggests other words to use that mean the same thing. Sometimes, I use its suggestions, but others do not. I have not had any stories rejected for AI since.

 

[Alan_Cinnamon]

This might be a bit of an older post, but I found it when searching to find out if anyone else was having the same issue I've seen when publishing here so I figure I'll drop my two cents.

Just a smidge of background. I'm a published author, with 3 novels to my name that are not erotica or even romance. I wanted to try my hand at writing erotica as it's a genre that has always had my interest, and Literotica was the first site that came to mind.

Thus far, I've submitted 6 total stories. Two of them were sent back, citing AI usage and the other four went through with no issues. Of the two sent back, one of them was accepted and published after I resubmitted with no changes but simply adding a note specifically pointing out that I didn't use AI in any way, shape or form, and the other was just sent back and resubmitted today, so I don't know what's going to happen with that one.

What strikes me as odd is that you would think if it was an issue with my style that every story would show up as AI or none of them would. We know tools that check for AI are unreliable at best, so what exactly is the solution to the problem? I don't mind resubmitting a story every once in a while, if it helps prevent a flood of AI generated content, but using just my own totals that's a 33% initial rejection rate and a 0% accuracy rate. That means I'd need to go through this every third story, which is a tad annoying.

It's not enough to stop me from posting, as the stories I've had published so far have gotten some great feedback, but it does concern me for the future of my trade in general and what could be down the road with this AI stuff.

 

[AG31]

What strikes me as odd is that you would think if it was an issue with my style that every story would show up as AI or none of them would.

That's exactly what prevents me from submitting enhancements (always small) to my stories. They were all published before this AI review began and the inconsistency people encounter makes me worry that if I submit an update my previous version will be withdrawn. No. I don't even use Grammarly.

But after going through a month or two of ridiculous ads on my initial Kindle page, I can see how this somehow needs to be brought under control.

 

[BDSMGromit]

Thus far, I've submitted 6 total stories. Two of them were sent back, citing AI usage and the other four went through with no issues. Of the two sent back, one of them was accepted and published after I resubmitted with no changes but simply adding a note specifically pointing out that I didn't use AI in any way, shape or form, and the other was just sent back and resubmitted today, so I don't know what's going to happen with that one.

My guess is that they have a tool that checks to see if the story has any grammar issues; if it's perfect, well, no human is perfect, so they assume a computer wrote it.

 

[StillStunned]

My guess is that they have a tool that checks to see if the story has any grammar issues; if it's perfect, well, no human is perfect, so they assume a computer wrote it.

As a professional editor, I have to disagree.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the program checks for other things like sentence variation and word repetition. Things where an AI generator actually falls short compared with human writers.