Story Sent Back due to AI?

[SyleusSnow]

I'd rather read the worst writing a human could peck out on a keyboard than something generated by a soulless machine.

Fair enough. There's plenty of the worst human writing on Lit and similar sites to choose from.

AI writing assistants are just that: assistants, like grammar and spelling checkers, though at a higher level. With the right guidance they can make passages of your own writing more clear, shorter, longer, or more descriptive. They can suggest ideas when you're stuck... all derived by training it on real human writing.

They can also make the writing bland, generic and wrong. And the AI in "self-driving" cars will happily run you off a cliff if you sit back and let them.

None of the AI tools I've seen so far are able to write even a short story that's even close to passable. Lit is right to reject that stuff, along with bad human written work. Bad is bad.

Personally, I'd rather read writing without spelling and grammar errors, good ideas, and flowing prose. If spelling, grammar and AI assistants helps a writer get it there, I'm all for it.

If a person is an 'idea person' - bristling with fresh concepts, poignant themes, compelling characters, beautiful settings but utterly inept at the actual mechanics of writing and guide an AI tool to do the drudgery, is that so bad? Is it much different from using a ghost writer or other form of collaboration?

I've been following The Nerdy Novelist. Very informative about what these tools actually do and how they can help and hinder. He thinks AI capable of creating fiction 'at the push of a button' is about 2 years away. When/if they get there, there'll be a flood of soulless writing. But every airport bookstore is already full of that. Lit is already full of it. Soulless writing has a huge audience.

But AI writing will never be able to make meaningful writing, any more than it can make meaningful visual or musical works. AI stories will never show meaningful change, subtext, purpose or anything else in great writing. Left on its own, purely synthetic writing will always lack intent, the core of every great work.

Not that most people care. As a crappy example, "Mad Max Fury Road" and "Three Thousand Years of Longing" are movies both by George Miller. One was empty spectacle, the other had intent and meaning. One was immensely popular. The other, I think, will be remembered

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I'd rather read the worst writing a human could peck out on a keyboard than something generated by a soulless machine.

Of course you would. Especially after I actually read some of the "stories" that were created by AI. They make no sense whatsoever.

The thing is, though... there's a difference between AI-generated gibberish, and a proper story that merely uses an AI assist to form sentences people can actually understand. I honestly believe that the general level of quality on Literotica would rise significantly. All the people who only know English as a second or third language, all the people with dyslexia, all the people who aren't well-trained writers... they can still be creative and have vivid imaginations. They just lack the skill to write it out properly.

I'd rather read a story with somewhat business-like wording, than having to read every paragraph three times before I understand what the author was trying to say.

 

[CalebZhass]

All the people who only know English as a second or third language, all the people with dyslexia, all the people who aren't well-trained writers... they can still be creative and have vivid imaginations. They just lack the skill to write it out properly.

This, I believe, is a major point. AI can indeed be a big enabler for people to turn their imagination into a written form and share it with others. It certainly is for me.

For some, it might be because they lack the imagination, or vocabulary to come up with connecting scenes on their own, and the few figments of fiction they have in their mind would be lacking the connecting tissue without an AI to fill out the blanks.

For others, like me, it is the lack of motivation to do the tedium of writing out a complex story from scratch, when I already know exactly where the story is going and I am not reaping any benefits from spending dozens of hours writing out something I know the ending of anyway. AI for me helps by making the writing process interactive and engaging, but allowing me to experience the story as I write it.

I write a passage and let the AI take it somewhere. I might keep the direction it goes, have it come up with different alternatives, or just continue writing on my own if the AI seems to be incapable to going in a direction I find acceptable. If I hit a dead end, I just roll back to an earlier junction and repeat the exploratory process anew.

Though I know where I want to take the story, I know the plot, the characters, the lore and the settings. I do not necessarily know what the exact action would be at any given point. The AI might take me into a direction that I like more than what I originally had and this interactive story telling is actually quite addictive, as it combines the desire of creation with the joy of experiencing something new as new.

Now obviously the stories that come out of a process like this are "shit" in terms of literary quality. Full of inconsistencies and grammar errors and with a style that "reeks of AI". However, you already have a story draft written out and you can flesh that out, fix the inconsistencies, fix the dialogues, add color and sound where needed. Once you did that, you can have a decent or even great story.

Now would that story be an original work of a human? That's though and can be highly subjective depending on where you look at it from. On one hand, the AI generated the story elements, so even if rewritten and reworded, is it really the work of a human? On the other hand however, it was the human behind the AI who settled on which version of the dozens of generations to take. It was the human that prompted the whole process, that might have provided the lore, the characters, the overall plot. So if this was a movie or theatrical play the human would be credited for at least directing the piece.

I firmly believe, that within the decade we will reach AI complexity, where they will be able to generate far better stories than what 99% of actual authors come up with and stories that they will be the sole authors of. We are not there yet of course. We are however looking at a technology that is going to transform (heck, it is transforming it as we speak) the world we live in and we will have to find both our places in this new world, and also will have to place the new technology somewhere. I don't envy those on whom this task falls.

 

[StillStunned]

For others, like me, it is the lack of motivation to do the tedium of writing out a complex story from scratch, when I already know exactly where the story is going and I am not reaping any benefits from spending dozens of hours writing out something I know the ending of anyway. AI for me helps by making the writing process interactive and engaging, but allowing me to experience the story as I write it.

I get this from daydreaming. If I want to write a story, I put fingers to keyboard. The work might be harder, but the result is immeasurably more satisfying.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

This, I believe, is a major point. AI can indeed be a big enabler for people to turn their imagination into a written form and share it with others. It certainly is for me.

For some, it might be because they lack the imagination, or vocabulary to come up with connecting scenes on their own, and the few figments of fiction they have in their mind would be lacking the connecting tissue without an AI to fill out the blanks.

For others, like me, it is the lack of motivation to do the tedium of writing out a complex story from scratch, when I already know exactly where the story is going and I am not reaping any benefits from spending dozens of hours writing out something I know the ending of anyway. AI for me helps by making the writing process interactive and engaging, but allowing me to experience the story as I write it.

I write a passage and let the AI take it somewhere. I might keep the direction it goes, have it come up with different alternatives, or just continue writing on my own if the AI seems to be incapable to going in a direction I find acceptable. If I hit a dead end, I just roll back to an earlier junction and repeat the exploratory process anew.

Though I know where I want to take the story, I know the plot, the characters, the lore and the settings. I do not necessarily know what the exact action would be at any given point. The AI might take me into a direction that I like more than what I originally had and this interactive story telling is actually quite addictive, as it combines the desire of creation with the joy of experiencing something new as new.

Now obviously the stories that come out of a process like this are "shit" in terms of literary quality. Full of inconsistencies and grammar errors and with a style that "reeks of AI". However, you already have a story draft written out and you can flesh that out, fix the inconsistencies, fix the dialogues, add color and sound where needed. Once you did that, you can have a decent or even great story.

Now would that story be an original work of a human? That's though and can be highly subjective depending on where you look at it from. On one hand, the AI generated the story elements, so even if rewritten and reworded, is it really the work of a human? On the other hand however, it was the human behind the AI who settled on which version of the dozens of generations to take. It was the human that prompted the whole process, that might have provided the lore, the characters, the overall plot. So if this was a movie or theatrical play the human would be credited for at least directing the piece.

I firmly believe, that within the decade we will reach AI complexity, where they will be able to generate far better stories than what 99% of actual authors come up with and stories that they will be the sole authors of. We are not there yet of course. We are however looking at a technology that is going to transform (heck, it is transforming it as we speak) the world we live in and we will have to find both our places in this new world, and also will have to place the new technology somewhere. I don't envy those on whom this task falls.

I will not read/watch/listen to art created with AI. Our humanity is what makes our art special. It grieves my heart that we are shelling out our minds to machines for a quick buck or a cheap thrill.

A writer has a story to tell in their mind. They sit down and put their heart and soul into creating something others can enjoy. It takes time and immense effort. When the story finished, they share it. Now, the idea that started in the author's mind is in the reader's. The reader can experience another human beings feelings/thoughts/ideas for better or for worse. That is beautiful and so uniquely human.

 

[CalebZhass]

I will not read/watch/listen to art created with AI. Our humanity is what makes our art special. It grieves my heart that we are shelling out our minds to machines for a quick buck or a cheap thrill.

A writer has a story to tell in their mind. They sit down and put their heart and soul into creating something others can enjoy. It takes time and immense effort. When the story finished, they share it. Now, the idea that started in the author's mind is in the reader's. The reader can experience another human beings feelings/thoughts/ideas for better or for worse. That is beautiful and so uniquely human.

No offense to you, but you would never be able to tell that my story is written on top of a collaborative story drafting session with an AI unless I tell you. Why? For starters, math. The first chapter is already over 8000 words and I have not finished it yet. To put that in context, the draft was less than 2000 and I pretty much changed every line as I rewrote the whole thing into a 1st person POV. So if its shit, its shit because i am shit, not because of what the AI wrote. What I did is, for all intents and purposes no different than taking a story idea from someone and flashing it out into a full story.

Lucky for you though, you will never have to sully your eyes with my AI filth, as despite what I said above, I am a straight shooter and will tell you when something i created has AI influence in it. As such it might never even get published. I dont care sharing it anywhere else as this is the site I care about and it is entirely possible it will get tossed on principle, which I have already accepted.

My point is, that just because someone uses AI, it does not automatically make it a soulless, cheap thrill only created for some quick gains in whatever. Though I also admit, that this is likely what AI will mostly be used for.

Still, generalization is bad.. mkay?

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

No offense to you, but you would never be able to tell that my story is written on top of a collaborative story drafting session with an AI unless I tell you. Why? For starters, math. The first chapter is already over 8000 words and I have not finished it yet. To put that in context, the draft was less than 2000 and I pretty much changed every line as I rewrote the whole thing into a 1st person POV. So if its shit, its shit because i am shit, not because of what the AI wrote. What I did is, for all intents and purposes no different than taking a story idea from someone and flashing it out into a full story.

Lucky for you though, you will never have to sully your eyes with my AI filth, as despite what I said above, I am a straight shooter and will tell you when something i created has AI influence in it. As such it might never even get published. I dont care sharing it anywhere else as this is the site I care about and it is entirely possible it will get tossed on principle, which I have already accepted.

My point is, that just because someone uses AI, it does not automatically make it a soulless, cheap thrill only created for some quick gains in whatever. Though I also admit, that this is likely what AI will mostly be used for.

Still, generalization is bad.. mkay?

m'kay...

Why don't you submit the work of your own effort? That is infinitely more valuable than the most perfect thing cranked out by a machine. Flaws/imperfections are what makes your art yours.

 

[alohadave]

m'kay...

Why don't you submit the work of your own effort? That is infinitely more valuable than the most perfect thing cranked out by a machine. Flaws/imperfections are what makes your art yours.

What is effort?

Should stories be written longhand on paper? I mean an author should make their own corrections and not rely on a machine to fix their mistakes. Or do you leave typos in as part of your art?

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

What is effort?

Should stories be written longhand on paper? I mean an author should make their own corrections and not rely on a machine to fix their mistakes. Or do you leave typos in as part of your art?

Effort is everything an author puts into writing their story.

 

[CalebZhass]

m'kay...

Why don't you submit the work of your own effort? That is infinitely more valuable than the most perfect thing cranked out by a machine. Flaws/imperfections are what makes your art yours.

That is exactly what I am planning to do, because I believe it is worth sharing, no matter the tools I use, which frankly is not anyone's business to begin with.

As for effort, I spent about a week drafting the storyline and the core lore, overall an easy 60 hours went into just that one. So much for the AI doing it all for me.

Since I started thinking about publishing it, I spent another 40 hours of editing and doing research on various subject matter in the story, to make sure I'm as accurate about the sorority culture and US educational system as I can be for someone who has never been to the US. That is just for the first chapter. While I believe subsequent ones will be easier once I settle on a style and tone, I do think that's a respectable amount of effort put into an almost novella sized first chapter.

You don't know anything about me, besides my vocal attitude against AI shaming, so please do assume I'm a slob looking for shortcuts, when you have absolutely no basis to make such a judgement.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

That is exactly what I am planning to do, because I believe it is worth sharing, no matter the tools I use, which frankly is not anyone's business to begin with.

As for effort, I spent about a week drafting the storyline and the core lore, overall an easy 60 hours went into just that one. So much for the AI doing it all for me.

Since I started thinking about publishing it, I spent another 40 hours of editing and doing research on various subject matter in the story, to make sure I'm as accurate about the sorority culture and US educational system as I can be for someone who has never been to the US. That is just for the first chapter. While I believe subsequent ones will be easier once I settle on a style and tone, I do think that's a respectable amount of effort put into an almost novella sized first chapter.

You don't know anything about me, besides my vocal attitude against AI shaming, so please do assume I'm a slob looking for shortcuts, when you have absolutely no basis to make such a judgement.

I'm not judging you. I thought we were having an intelligent, grown up discussion about art.

 

[CalebZhass]

I'm not judging you. I thought we were having an intelligent, grown up discussion about art.

Coming from someone posting in an author's hangout topic it is hard for me to look at the above and believe you didn't realize the irony in your own words there.

How bout we just agree to disagree and move on?

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Coming from someone posting in an author's hangout topic it is hard for me to look at the above and believe you didn't realize the irony in your own words there.

How bout we just agree to disagree and move on?

Sounds great. Have a great day.

 

[christa_p]

Most people who have gotten returns with the same message have reported success by simply re-submitting with a note to the editor explaining what, if any, grammar checking was done or what program was used. Some have gotten things kicked back despite that. There are a number of similar threads from the last month or two that provide some advice on how to check your submission for potentially suspect passages, especially dialogue, if you care to do so. There are a number of writing habits for online erotica that are unfortunately similar stylistically to what current generative AI tends to produce, and the site is apparently still casting a wide net while trying to find a reliable and efficient way to screen submissions.

Same here, I resubmitted a rejected story with an explanation, I hope it helps. Funny thing is that I reject the suggestions most of the time on wording because it's dialogue and it would sound weird if I took the correction.

 

[christa_p]

I recently had a chapter in my story be sent back, and they quoted the following-

• Literotica is a storytelling community centered on the sharing of human adult fantasies. While we do not have a policy against using tools to help with the writing process (i.e. spellcheck, grammar suggestions, etc.), we do ask that all work published on the site at this time be created primarily by a human. Please see this FAQ for more information: https://literotica.com/faq/publishing/publishing-ai

I have never used AI tools for my writing, outside of some brief spellchecking tools, so I'm not sure how to respond to this. I'm worried that if I resubmit the story as-is it will get sent back again.

I got this as well, I have a lot of punctuation and spelling errors that grammarly catches and occasionally a different word but it's far from AI generated. I have submitted a number of stories using it and never had this come up before.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Didn't we discuss this yesterday, the day before, the entire week before, like close to a whole month now, on several different threads? Or am I full of shit again?

We need a separate AI forum.

 

[EmilyMiller]

There are legitimate uses of AI in creative writing. SudoWrite and others are helpful for brainstorming and creating initial plot outlines. They can expand human-written paragraphs to add sensory details and metaphors or condense long-winded text to be more concise.

I don’t view that as legitimate - but opinions are just opinions.

Emily

 

[StillStunned]

I don’t view that as legitimate - but opinions are just opinions.

Emily

I don't see it as legitimate either. Sensory details? The bits that, almost more than anything else, distinguish humans from machines, and you want to let AI fill in the blanks?

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I don't see it as legitimate either. Sensory details? The bits that, almost more than anything else, distinguish humans from machines, and you want to let AI fill in the blanks?

No offense, but there are merely a handful of authors on here who actually take the time to describe sensory details. The overwhelmingly vast majority of stories doesn't bother. Then there's a sizable part that, even if they remember that it could be beneficial, doesn't see the need to go beyond "the feeling of something-something was unbelievably good". AI would at least make something up if you told it to.

 

[StopT]

People come here to vent about their stories being rejected, even though they've never used AI. Yet, they're constantly advised not to use it.

 

[CalebZhass]

People come here to vent about their stories being rejected, even though they've never used AI. Yet, they're constantly advised not to use it.

Being falsely accused of doing something bad is one of the worst feelings ever, especially if it happens in something that you are proud of. Rejecting works on the basis that they are likely AI is basically an accusation of lacking integrity, willfully disobeying the rules for personal gain. About as deep a cut as one can make with words: insulting someone's honor.

I can most certainly understand people being upset about it, even if the solution sometimes is just as simple as resubmitting with a clarification. Though maybe that might also add to the frustration? If the solution is that simple, then why the whole charade? Why not just ask people to write a note claiming the work is theirs in order to get it posted, or even just have a checkbox for it. I assume it has to do with legal things. If they do a due diligence check and throw it back, but then you insist its yours, they might be off the hook legally in a subsequent copyright dispute, whereas if they just publish it without checking, they are negligent.

I do agree though with Em, that AH is not a productive forum for these topics. For one, there are many people here who are quite hostile towards the notion of using AIs, so far less sympathetic ears than one would expect. Then also the fact, that it really is a site technical issue, for which there is a dedicated forum. Last, but not least, most of the regulars here are old enough players to rarely suffer from similar issues on account of their posting history likely affording them some additional consideration in the publishing process.

 

[StopT]

For one, there are many people here who are quite hostile towards the notion of using AIs, so far less sympathetic ears than one would expect.

They're not hostile because of AIs; they're hostile because they enjoy it. It's just an excuse to release pent-up aggression.

I occasionally use AI in the final edit. For example, it might suggest changing the sentence:

I looked at them and ordered, "Go to your room!" to Glancing at them, I instructed, "Go to your room!"

Which is more than legit. If anyone's got a problem with it, they are more than welcome to kiss my ass.

 

[CalebZhass]

The issue is that not even adding that clarification leaves you free of the accusation. I submitted something with a note saying I didn't use any form of AI or grammar checker and it got through without issue, but the next time I did it the part got rejected on AI grounds. There is no consistency to the accusations or what is allowed to pass and what isn't, that's where the main issue is stemming from, at least for me anyway.

Yea, well, the reasons for this have been debated to death in various topics. Short version: tools are glorified coin flipping machines with no science behind them other than picking a number of metrics and pretending that those tell anything about anything.

I've been fighting tooth and nail to have almost every part of my current work uploaded to the site despite having a conversation with Laurel and following every single one of her recommendations.

I'm not familiar with the kind of stories you write, but I for one appreciate your tenacity. The more the merrier

I'm similar in this regard. I said it at the beginning. I'm here to give back to the site and the stories I write will most likely not see the light of day elsewhere, as I just don't care enough to write or post them, if not for Lit. So for me, it's a fight I'm willing to fight. With the first story I was lucky, though honestly quite a lot of work and editing went into it before it got published. The second one I'm working on right now easily took 3 times as much work already (even though it's not proportionally longer), so as nasty a humor ole' uncle Murphy has, I'm biting my nails wondering if this will be the one to get sent back, once I'm finally done with it and press publish.

This is another one of my main issues. Most of those getting flagged, myself included, are new to the site. By constantly flagging us for AI, they are inadvertently turning away those new users because they might not be as mental as I am to be willing to fight so hard for something to be flagged up. I understand why newer users are under a great deal more scrutiny than perhaps the older users, but the old users can also use AI.

This is a risk the owners of the site have to weigh, unfortunately it's not on us.

No one should be giving a free pass. If newer users are facing these accusations, older users should too because anyone can use AI and claim it to be their work.

I would hate for it to happen. The whole AI detector charade is a bad step into the wrong direction to combat a problem that in all fairness would likely sort itself out through the users of the site.

The last thing I would want to see is more people subjected to pointless cavity searches by the TSA just because one in a billion passengers might be a terrorist.

I'm not claiming that the proportions of stories suffering from AI problems are this low, just comparing the current method to some of the knee-jerk reactions that humanity is prone to lean towards when faced with an unsolvable problem. These are usually only there to show you something is being done, even when that something is totally ineffective or extremely disproportionate compared to the real problem.

The lack of consistency in establishing the rules or following through on them is what pisses me off the most.

Not so much about consistency as it is the lack of clarity and transparency about the whole process.

 

[CalebZhass]

They're not hostile because of AIs; they're hostile because they enjoy it. It's just an excuse to release pent-up aggression.

I occasionally use AI in the final edit. For example, it might suggest changing the sentence:

I looked at them and ordered, "Go to your room!" to Glancing at them, I instructed, "Go to your room!"

Which is more than legit. If someone has a problem with that, they are more than welcome to kiss my ass.

While I have my opinion about the spirit of Lit's rules around AI, I would advise against bragging about the use of AI for anything other than analysis. Generating content with AI and accepting the generated content into your work can and will be interpreted as a breech of the site's rules by many.

In general I find bragging about it pointlessly confrontational, just as I disagree with your generalization of why people react the way they do. I haven't been here much longer than you have, but I've been following AH quite closely in the past two months and I really haven't seen any truly malicious / aggressive people out there.

You have to realize, that the core audience of this forum is a relatively small, close knit group of mostly very friendly and helpful folks. The rest, well we don't all have to be friends, it's enough if we respect each other enough to not to stay at an arm's length.

 

[StopT]

While I have my opinion about the spirit of Lit's rules around AI, I would advise against bragging about the use of AI for anything other than analysis. Generating content with AI and accepting the generated content into your work can and will be interpreted as a breech of the site's rules by many.

In general I find bragging about it pointlessly confrontational, just as I disagree with your generalization of why people react the way they do. I haven't been here much longer than you have, but I've been following AH quite closely in the past two months and I really haven't seen any truly malicious / aggressive people out there.

You have to realize, that the core audience of this forum is a relatively small, close knit group of mostly very friendly and helpful folks. The rest, well we don't all have to be friends, it's enough if we respect each other enough to not to be each other's way.

Welcome to my ignore list.