Rejection

So, you got 100% on dialog because there was no dialog so you couldn't screw that part up.
Btw if English isn't my native language, I actually pity you for using computer tools to learn that out, you need a certificate to prove your false narrative, even though you don't know me, and where I come from.
 
I ran the first story of yours on your author page through autocrit, it wasn't impressed.

View attachment 2578981

I also read it and have formed the opinion that English isn't your native language. You might want to consider posting stories in your native language.
Are we still doing this, where we feed each others stories into a generative AI model without asking first?
 
Been trying not to say this, but! You're writing skills are poor!
I accept that, am I asking you for a favour, you can be the best in English, French or some other language, I don't care, my point is and will be, if my stories have been published, then why aren't the ones which have been written in that same poor writing skills published, when they were originally submitted in sept.
 
Btw if English isn't my native language, I actually pity you for using computer tools to learn that out, you need a certificate to prove your false narrative, even though you don't know me, and where I come from.

"To learn that out"...?

Sorry, tell us again about your firm grasp of English.
 
Are we still doing this, where we feed each others stories into a generative AI model without asking first?
Don't worry, I'm still not bothered, People on think differently and I'm okay, I'm still trying to convince them why I started this topic.
 
My Mum says UK, but you know the whole English/Australian thing makes her a bit biased. And I have no opinion on that, but I'm American, so that's what I know.
Can you prove yourself first. If this is a test of English, Maybe you need to declare which is better English UK or US.
 
I didn't check it for AI, I checked it for good writing structure.
You see, I'm typing things on my mobile, I type as I think, sometimes before posting, i really prefer a proof check, so using something convenient is helpful, what if I say all the other stuff posted by writers was similar to mine. In a way of proof check, I specifically used a different way to make others know what's happening in my story, by avoiding "
 
I didn't check it for AI, I checked it for good writing structure.
Millie, I know I'm not an authority and I'm speaking for others here, but please do not feed the work of any other author into a generative AI model. If you want to do that yourself for your own work, fine. If others want to do that for their own work, fine.

It's genuinely disconcerting that you did this.
 
Millie, I know I'm not an authority and I'm speaking for others here, but please do not feed the work of any other author into a generative AI model. If you want to do that yourself for your own work, fine. If others want to do that for their own work, fine.

It's genuinely disconcerting that you did this.
Let's end this, I'm really not worried about things anymore, yes feel a bit sad, that it went to this length, but I honestly feel, my work isn't close to AI,
I use my past experiences and mind to write about stuff, you guys as approvers have your own headaches, but in the end of the day, it's straight out for the people, I'm not seeking money for my works, I'm doing this since I have things to be shared.
 
My Mum says UK, but you know the whole English/Australian thing makes her a bit biased. And I have no opinion on that, but I'm American, so that's what I know.
Relax and if you can help me with making my experiences better, then please do, I'll write in my words, then you can use your grammar and better English skills to make something precious for the public.
 
Millie, I know I'm not an authority and I'm speaking for others here, but please do not feed the work of any other author into a generative AI model. If you want to do that yourself for your own work, fine. If others want to do that for their own work, fine.

It's genuinely disconcerting that you did this.

If someone states they are getting stories rejected for unknown reasons, and that person seems to be deliberately hiding the reason, and it seems likely that reason might be poor grammar/grasp of English, then I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to run that person's public writing through an automated tool for analysis.

Would running someone's document through a spellchecker if it looked to be rife with spelling errors be some sort of major offense as well?

Using the phrase "generative AI model" implies that she's using his work to illicitly create something else for her benefit at their expense when she clearly did no such thing.
 
If someone states they are getting stories rejected for unknown reasons, and that person seems to be deliberately hiding the reason, and it seems likely that reason might be poor grammar/grasp of English, then I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to run that person's public writing through an automated tool for analysis.

Would running someone's document through a spellchecker if it looked to be rife with spelling errors be some sort of major offense as well?

Using the phrase "generative AI model" implies that she's using his work to illicitly create something else for her benefit at their expense when she clearly did no such thing.
A spellchecker is not generative AI. Autocrit self-advertises as using generative AI for their work. Their FAQ on this is broken (shocker) but the SEO is enough that doing a google search for it produces this information. I don't think Millie benefits from this at all (because I think using generative AI like this hurts the user by dulling their own critical thinking capabilities).

The people who benefit from this are billionaires and venture capitalists.
 
If someone states they are getting stories rejected for unknown reasons, and that person seems to be deliberately hiding the reason, and it seems likely that reason might be poor grammar/grasp of English, then I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to run that person's public writing through an automated tool for analysis.

Would running someone's document through a spellchecker if it looked to be rife with spelling errors be some sort of major offense as well?

Using the phrase "generative AI model" implies that she's using his work to illicitly create something else for her benefit at their expense when she clearly did no such thing.
Don't start things again, I'm just, but screw it, I shared the screenshot of the one's who rejected things, so go and find out for yourself, if you don't have a way to do that, then I'm not showing you that way.
 
If someone states they are getting stories rejected for unknown reasons, and that person seems to be deliberately hiding the reason, and it seems likely that reason might be poor grammar/grasp of English, then I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to run that person's public writing through an automated tool for analysis.

Would running someone's document through a spellchecker if it looked to be rife with spelling errors be some sort of major offense as well?

Using the phrase "generative AI model" implies that she's using his work to illicitly create something else for her benefit at their expense when she clearly did no such thing.
I think at this point I basically think you shouldn't be entering anything that isn't yours into any online form or tool, anywhere. If the issue is poor grammar... just read the story? And it should jump out pretty clearly? I mean, there are things that get published here that are pretty grammatically questionable. This was the first few lines of a story published the other day:

In an earlier story I told about the time when she purposely touched my asshole.My legs were open as she grazed a fingernail over my hole, I moaned my pleasure, my hard cock was dripping. I didn't know what to say, when she said, "do you like that?"
It's not ideal, grammatically. But it got published and when I looked it was right there on the edge of being Hot. I think, in order to get a rejection for grammar, you'd have to be pretty far out there and it'd be obvious on first contact.
 
If someone states they are getting stories rejected for unknown reasons, and that person seems to be deliberately hiding the reason, and it seems likely that reason might be poor grammar/grasp of English, then I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to run that person's public writing through an automated tool for analysis.

Would running someone's document through a spellchecker if it looked to be rife with spelling errors be some sort of major offense as well?

Using the phrase "generative AI model" implies that she's using his work to illicitly create something else for her benefit at their expense when she clearly did no such thing.
Go read anyone of my stories, then use AI to come up with a plot twist, I'll challenge you I'll make that better and something that AI sites can't fathom, but using grammar and punctuations don't alter the course of my stories.
 
A spellchecker is not generative AI. Autocrit self-advertises as using generative AI for their work. I don't think Millie benefits from this at all (because I think using generative AI like this hurts the user by dulling their own critical thinking capabilities).

The people who benefit from this are billionaires and venture capitalists.

Can you clarify your position? I ask genuinely.

Is your problem that some company using the AI will have access to the document submitted? Because I'm sure you don't think that AI can't access documents already publicly available anyway.

Is your problem that the company itself uses AI at all? If so, where do you draw the line in 2025? Google Docs analyzes my writing and tells me if I've used the wrong tense on a word. That clearly must count as AI - is copying someone's document into Google Docs to check it for errors the same thing in your opinion?
 
I think at this point I basically think you shouldn't be entering anything that isn't yours into any online form or tool, anywhere. If the issue is poor grammar... just read the story? And it should jump out pretty clearly? I mean, there are things that get published here that are pretty grammatically questionable. This was the first few lines of a story published the other day:


It's not ideal, grammatically. But it got published and when I looked it was right there on the edge of being Hot. I think, in order to get a rejection for grammar, you'd have to be pretty far out there and it'd be obvious on first contact.
Whose story are you talking about, you really pathetic
 
I think at this point I basically think you shouldn't be entering anything that isn't yours into any online form or tool, anywhere.
That's fair. But again, the OP complained about the mystery of his story getting rejected. @MillieDynamite used a tool to try to explain why. I still disagree that she was in the wrong to do so.

It's not like she's going around on some spree of randomly analyzing people's stories just to call them out on poor grammar.
 
AutoCrit uses classic literature or the literature of a specific writer to compare what you've written to either the standard for the category or a particular writer's work, to give you a scale to compare what you've written. I used Romance as the model for this work. I concluded that this person needs to improve their writing. But I'm assuming English isn't their natural language, so I'm suggesting they publish in their own language. That's it, no AI LLM involved. It is an editing tool that provides you with information to improve your work yourself. It doesn't make changes for you or even give suggestions for changes.
A spellchecker is not generative AI. Autocrit self-advertises as using generative AI for their work. Their FAQ on this is broken (shocker) but the SEO is enough that doing a google search for it produces this information. I don't think Millie benefits from this at all (because I think using generative AI like this hurts the user by dulling their own critical thinking capabilities).

The people who benefit from this are billionaires and venture capitalists.
 
Whose story are you talking about, you really pathetic
I think I'm done with this, if this site wants to publish my stuff then fine, but either way for some people just enjoy being ................ Hope this grammar, punctuations are enough to understand what I meant..
 
Back
Top