AI Rejection

[EmilyMiller]

I've stopped using it now since I thought that was what was pinging me back - apparently not - but I mainly used it for commas and comma splices. They've been the bane of my life and Grammarly helped to fix them. That's all I ever used it for

See, I had to Google comma splice

 

[MillieDynamite]

Then use it @Portly_Penguin!!!!

 

[EmilyMiller]

The last two parts I just let the comma splices be and didn't touch Grammarly with a barge pole. One story passed, one still lingers in pending. An annoying conundrum

I really don’t care too much about the more abstruse aspects of punctuation and grammar. I know it’s religion for some, but I’m more focused on telling a story. The sort of person who gets hives when I use a semi-colon as opposed to a comma is probably not going to be my fan.

Emily

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

See, I had to Google comma splice

I'm calling sarcasm here. Anyone that uses abstruse correctly in a sentence, Knows what a comma splice is.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'm calling sarcasm here. Anyone that uses abstruse correctly in a sentence, Knows what a comma splice is.

Not true - I love words - it’s common knowledge that I ingurgitated a thesaurus. But the pesky symbols in between the words? Who has the time?

 

[MillieDynamite]

Scarcasm, umm, that's like ironic if she's being sarcastic, isn't it? Or is EmilyMiller making a mockery of her own posting? I'm so friggin cornyfused.

I'm calling sarcasm here. Anyone that uses abstruse correctly in a sentence, Knows what a comma splice is.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Scarcasm, umm, that's like ironic if she's being sarcastic, isn't it? Or is EmilyMiller making a mockery of her own posting? I'm so friggin cornyfused.

The complexities of @EmilyMiller's deliciously intriguing mind have yet to be fully mapped. Ironies and sarcasms would seem to run rampant, but then, so would words that would make the meek; people like me, quiver in both fear and delight as they(we) grab madly for our thesauri.

 

[Britva415]

Can someone please tell me what the benefit of Grammarly is. It sounds truly awful.

The way they advertise it is - using it can make your business communication more effective. Like if the success of your work depends on being persuasive instead of deferential, decisive instead of wishy-washy, engaging instead of uncharismatic, some of its replacement suggestions can make what you're writing sound more actionable so it doesn't get ignored.

As someone else said, it's really not designed around fiction.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Not true - I love words - it’s common knowledge that I ingurgitated a thesaurus. But the pesky symbols in between the words? Who has the time?

Perhaps I should have said 'claiming.' At least then, i could have pretended I was talking about myself...

 

[MillieDynamite]

Yes, I resemble that remark!

The way they advertise it is - using it can make your business communication more effective. Like if the success of your work depends on being persuasive instead of deferential, decisive instead of wishy-washy, engaging instead of uncharismatic, some of its replacement suggestions can make what you're writing sound more actionable so it doesn't get ignored.

As someone else said, it's really not designed around fiction.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Scarcasm, umm, that's like ironic if she's being sarcastic, isn't it? Or is EmilyMiller making a mockery of her own posting? I'm so friggin cornyfused.

It’s ironic how few people can tell the difference between sarcasm and… oh… what’s that other word?

Emily

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

The way they advertise it is - using it can make your business communication more effective. Like if the success of your work depends on being persuasive instead of deferential, decisive instead of wishy-washy, engaging instead of uncharismatic, some of its replacement suggestions can make what you're writing sound more actionable so it doesn't get ignored.

As someone else said, it's really not designed around fiction.

There are other Word plug ins that are. From what I understand, Pro Writing Aid has filters specifically for sub genres such as Fiction; Horror, Fantasy, Romance, Science Fiction, etc. Not sure what that means in practice, but...

 

[EmilyMiller]

The way they advertise it is - using it can make your business communication more effective. Like if the success of your work depends on being persuasive instead of deferential, decisive instead of wishy-washy, engaging instead of uncharismatic, some of its replacement suggestions can make what you're writing sound more actionable so it doesn't get ignored.

As someone else said, it's really not designed around fiction.

As someone who spends a lot of time writing quite technical business reports, that sounds like quite some claim.

Emily

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

It’s ironic how few people can tell the difference between sarcasm and… oh… what’s that other word?

Emily

I have a friend that would know, let me ask you...

 

[Britva415]

As someone who spends a lot of time writing quite technical business reports, that sounds like quite some claim.

Emily

The scenarios in the ads are email communications, not impersonal documentation.

 

[MillieDynamite]

How the fuck would I know you trying to embarrass me?

It’s ironic how few people can tell the difference between sarcasm and… oh… what’s that other word?

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

I have a friend that would know, let me ask you...

I’m meant to be making monkfish curry. And I have a track record of self harm where Lit and sharp knives are involved. So gonna focus on that - later.

Emily

 

[DrPope]

Maybe my crap punctuation forms an AI shield.

It's certainly true that the more shit you are at gramma, spellin and puncktuation the easier it is to pass AI detection tools

 

[StillStunned]

It's certainly true that the more shit you are at gramma, spellin and puncktuation the easier it is to pass AI detection tools

Or the more you understand how language works, and why, the easier it is to achieve the effects you want, to create a style that shows an individual human touch. To use your language to turn a narrative into a story.

 

[loerics]

I really don’t care too much about the more abstruse aspects of punctuation and grammar. I know it’s religion for some, but I’m more focused on telling a story. The sort of person who gets hives when I use a semi-colon as opposed to a comma is probably not going to be my fan.

Emily

I’ve never noticed you using a semicolon in the one story of yours that I read. In fact, I didn’t notice the punctuation at all. It was well written and flowed nicely. Interesting take on Loving Wives. I’ll have to read more of your work while I wait for the AI brouhaha to die down. At least something good has come of obsessing on the AI Rejection thread.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’ve never noticed you using a semicolon in the one story of yours that I read. In fact, I didn’t notice the punctuation at all. It was well written and flowed nicely. Interesting take on Loving Wives. I’ll have to read more of your work while I wait for the AI brouhaha to die down. At least something good has come of obsessing on the AI Rejection thread.

That’s very kind of you to say. Made my day .

Emily

 

[loerics]

I never thought that this was the reason you were letting Grammarly rewrite your sentences. I was brainstorming a hypothetical about why someone might not care about publicly admitting to submitting what Lit regards as AI-generated content to Lit.

I can see that this isn't what you thought you were doing, not for that reason or any other reason. You clearly didn't think you were submitting AI-generated content at all. So, you and Laurel disagree on that point, which is why I said you were telling on yourself by admitting to using Grammarly the way you do. That's all I was ever saying.

I have no idea what Laurel thinks or how she makes her decisions. We don’t know if she uses an AI detector or uses her experience.
I don’t know how you can make the unsupported claim that sometimes accepting Grammarly’s suggestion to rearrange phrases in a sentence for clarity crosses the AI line. I or another author could just as easily have used that ordering of phrases in the first place. There is no reliable way to detect editing at that level. Multiple posters have demonstrated that AI detectors don’t work.
I’ve worked in AI related fields (computer vision) for forty years. No one in the field would call reordering phrases AI. Grammarly Pro will offer to rewrite a document for clarity and I’ve never been curious enough to even see what happens if I accept the offer. I might agree that is crossing the AI line, but I maintain everything I know says you wouldn’t be able to reliably detect it with AI detection software. A human being might convince themselves they can detect AI generated text but then the good Christians in Salem were convinced they could detect witches.

 

[loerics]

Not true - I love words - it’s common knowledge that I ingurgitated a thesaurus. But the pesky symbols in between the words? Who has the time?

I use a thesaurus heavily. Are you sure that’s not crossing the AI line? I’m punch drunk and unsure of anything.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I use a thesaurus heavily. Are you sure that’s not crossing the AI line? I’m punch drunk and unsure of anything.

I very seldom use an actual thesaurus. I do look words up when I think I know the meaning but am not 100% sure.

Emily

 

[Britva415]

I don’t know how you can make the unsupported claim that sometimes accepting Grammarly’s suggestion to rearrange phrases in a sentence for clarity crosses the AI line.

From the FAQ: "One area of particular concern is software or apps that “rewrite” your paragraphs or stories for you. The text that results from rewriting features is definitely AI generated."

You're right, that's open to interpretation. But the word "rewrite" is there. Twice. Does it mean "rephrase," in Laurel's interpretation? I don't use it anyway, but I wouldn't recommend trying to fuck around and find out.

I or another author could just as easily have used that ordering of phrases in the first place. There is no reliable way to detect editing at that level. Multiple posters have demonstrated that AI detectors don’t work.

I haven't argued against this point of view at all. All I've done is to say that "the line" is a philosophical one, and regardless of whether it's practical to enforce it or not, to repeatedly say out loud that you're crossing the philosophical line can't possibly help you get stories approved as a practical matter.