Anyone up for a Grammarly AI experiment?

[SimonDoom]

Are you kidding me? You can't recognize that 'reassurance' in this case means a proofreader, an editor, someone or something, whether human or program, that helps you look over your writing, no matter how good or knowledgeable you may be as a writer?

I have never used the term "reassurance" in this way, and your usage doesn't fit with my reading of the definition in Merriam-Webster.

 

[MrHereWriting]

I have never used the term "reassurance" in this way, and your usage doesn't fit with my reading of the definition in Merriam-Webster.

Open your mind, because your limitations aren't my problem.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Open your mind, because your limitations aren't my problem.

Yeah, it's us. We're the problem.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Yeah, it's us. We're the problem.

You won't fix yourself with laughter, but hopefully it makes you feel good.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Grammarly is primarily a business editor. Even when you change the settings to creative and as loose as possible, the changes it suggests aren't going to do what is promised. The biggest flaw I have noticed, which is why I stopped using it, is that it takes opening clauses and moves the text to closing ones. Its justification for this is "clarity," but the problem is that it makes it anything but clearer. I didn't do the challenge because I knew what the outcome would be and didn't need reinforcement to not use Grammarly when a human editor goes over my work.

 

[dmallord]

This would require someone who has the full paid version of Grammarly (which I don't) and a story where Grammarly wasn't used. I'm very curious just how much of a change the full version of Grammarly would have on AI detection.

So.
1. Use this AI content detector - https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/
2. Put the first 5K words of the story through that detector. Record the result, given as a percentage of being human generated.
3. Create a second copy of your story that you can play with without messing up your original.
4. Then run that copy through the full paid Grammarly checker and accept all changes. Grammar, word use, sentence structure, the works.
5. Then put the first 5K words through the AI detector again and record the new result.
6. Post results.

I realize this will vary from writer to writer, but if everyone who feels like participating uses the same AI detector and full Grammarly it might shed a little light on just how much effect it has on getting flagged for AI. And it will either confirm our fears about Grammarly or assuage them.

View attachment 2372141

I followed your directions and selected a self-edited story I wrote without Grammarly or outside help. It is a humor/satire entry called "Life is Like a Bucket of Shit."

The content is filled with many colloquial expressions. It was a painstaking effort to use Grammarly Pro, which I started using after readers voiced complaints that I needed help. It found 257 issues: commas removed/added, rewritten for clarity, change of vocabulary, and assorted other recommendations. The number of words selected from the story was 4,475. After Grammarly ran and made its recommendations, the number of words in the story became 4,675. Grammarly added 200 words to its suggestions in recommended changes.

In my review of the changes, the storyline remained the same. However, it lost some of the colorful, colloquial feel. For a Lit reader, this probably would not have been noticed all that much. For me, it was a duller shade of the main character's ability to describe what happened from his first-person, laid-back carpenter's perspective.

My work became 'Grammatically correct' from a business writer's perspective I suppose.

Now, from the AI source you provided to my surprise, both versions were labeled 100% human-generated content. Not so surprising I guess. I am human, and the suggestions impacted grammatical issues as opposed to writing style or thematic expressions to any significant changes.

It would appear that my story's corrections by Grammarly Pro did not affect your AI-Generator algorithms to any signification extent as both came back 100% human.

 

[ElectricBlue]

In my review of the changes, the storyline remained the same. However, it lost some of the colorful, colloquial feel. For a Lit reader, this probably would not have been noticed all that much. For me, it was a duller shade of the main character's ability to describe what happened from his first-person, laid-back carpenter's perspective.

My work became 'Grammatically correct' from a business writer's perspective I suppose.

That's the key, isn't it?

What might be great for bland, inoffensive business writing is the complete opposite of what you want for fiction. The Grammarly enthusiasts seem to forget that basic difference. If you want your text to sound like a business report, sure, go use Grammarly, but if you use it for fiction...

 

[MrHereWriting]

In my review of the changes, the storyline remained the same. However, it lost some of the colorful, colloquial feel. For a Lit reader, this probably would not have been noticed all that much. For me, it was a duller shade of the main character's ability to describe what happened from his first-person, laid-back carpenter's perspective.

I hope this is the only time you've ever let Grammarly rewrite something for you.

 

[dmallord]

The thread intended to test Grammarly Pro to see if its changes affected an AI detection algorithm. Instead, contributors used it to bash the idea of using software to aid a person's writing. The detractors' premise, overall, was that software writing tools stifle creativity or diminish one's ability to master language.

@Rob_royal didn't set out to test the theory that AI quashed creative writing. He asked to see if some of the experiences writers have had in getting stories labeled AI-rejected were perhaps due to the recommendations in the Grammarly software program. He asked Pro users to participate in a test run and report on the results. How many here did that? How many wandered off into the woods on a self-righteous mission instead?

When the thread's intent is not appropriately addressed, it results in bad form, Bad Karma, and anger.

If you don't want to participate, you should avoid the quest. Some of you approached the concept like sidewalk supervisors trying to tell a sidewalk chalk artist what he should draw or how bad it looked without asking for their opinions. You should have kept your hands in your pockets and just walked away.

[An old guy's take on what was said here. BTW, I ran this rant through Grammarly Pro, and it said, "Nice Job!"]

 

[dmallord]

I hope this is the only time you've ever let Grammarly rewrite something for you.

Grammarly is not at the stage of AI where it can write things for anyone. It edits some content, but it will not edit the steamy Lit stuff I write!

I'm quite picky about accepting its suggestions. Once in a while, it actually comes up with a better structure. But most of the time, I prefer to stick with my own words and style. I'm aware of some of my shortcomings in writing, and Grammarly helps me out by catching them. It definitely helps keep the grammar police at bay!

I also collaborate with Kenjisato, a volunteer literary editor, who often catches more issues than Grammarly does – and he does it for free! Currently, I'm paying around $144 for a yearly subscription to Grammarly, and I honestly think it's worth every penny.

 

[Rob_Royale]

The thread intended to test Grammarly Pro to see if its changes affected an AI detection algorithm. Instead, contributors used it to bash the idea of using software to aid a person's writing. The detractors' premise, overall, was that software writing tools stifle creativity or diminish one's ability to master language.

@Rob_royal didn't set out to test the theory that AI quashed creative writing. He asked to see if some of the experiences writers have had in getting stories labeled AI-rejected were perhaps due to the recommendations in the Grammarly software program. He asked Pro users to participate in a test run and report on the results. How many here did that? How many wandered off into the woods on a self-righteous mission instead?

When the thread's intent is not appropriately addressed, it results in bad form, Bad Karma, and anger.

If you don't want to participate, you should avoid the quest. Some of you approached the concept like sidewalk supervisors trying to tell a sidewalk chalk artist what he should draw or how bad it looked without asking for their opinions. You should have kept your hands in your pockets and just walked away.

[An old guy's take on what was said here. BTW, I ran this rant through Grammarly Pro, and it said, "Nice Job!"]

Thanks very much. Having seen so many threads devolve into childish arguments, I really should have known better.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I have seen my writing go from 100% human to 90ish or lower using Grammarly suggestions. The reorganizing of your words is the main key to the happening. Or the changing the word deeper to more profound, or other such suggestions "intended" to make it clearer or less repetitive. I use software, including Grammarly, for a quick check of my grammar or punctuation. But deep-dive editing is my editor's job. If you can let Grammarly work for you and accept every change without it turning into something that triggers AI checkers more power to you. I've never been able to pull that off.

I also tend to write dialog like the person I'm having say the words would do so. "We shouldn't've done that," rather than "We should not have," or "We shouldn't have." Many people don't use perfect grammar when they talk. We leave out verbs often. Doing so when you write makes reading those lines more authentic.

I rather imagine that if someone wrote highly specific cues and edited the work heavily after AI wrote the story, they could pass an AI checker. It actually sounds harder to me that way than just writing your story.

Grammarly is a tool; how you use it is up to you. However, if you ask Grammarly for suggestions to rewrite lines, those passages definitely read AIish.

Everyone's results will probably vary with any writing tool.

Thanks very much. Having seen so many threads devolve into childish arguments, I really should have known better.

 

[Silver_Arrow]

Same, and I can't count the times I've thrown proper grammar to the wind because I just want it that way. Especially in dialog, but also descriptive text because the wrong grammar fits the situation better than the proper.

I often ignore a great deal of some of the Grammarly suggestions because it changes the way my writing sounds to me. Sometimes I'm a bit too wordy and it does need to be cut down, other times it's just how the thoughts make the most sense and I keep it as is. I'd like to think I keep proper grammar where it's needed but over all let my writing style take the lead.

I have seen my writing go from 100% human to 90ish or lower using Grammarly suggestions. The reorganizing of your words is the main key to the happening. Or the changing the word deeper to more profound, or other such suggestions "intended" to make it clearer or less repetitive. I use software, including Grammarly, for a quick check of my grammar or punctuation. But deep-dive editing is my editor's job. If you can let Grammarly work for you and accept every change without it turning into something that triggers AI checkers more power to you. I've never been able to pull that off.

I also tend to write dialog like the person I'm having say the words would do so. "We shouldn't've done that," rather than "We should not have," or "We shouldn't have." Many people don't use perfect grammar when they talk. We leave out verbs often. Doing so when you write makes reading those lines more authentic.

I rather imagine that if someone wrote highly specific cues and edited the work heavily after AI wrote the story, they could pass an AI checker. It actually sounds harder to me that way than just writing your story.

Grammarly is a tool; how you use it is up to you. However, if you ask Grammarly for suggestions to rewrite lines, those passages definitely read AIish.

Everyone's results will probably vary with any writing tool.

I've found a good balance between Grammarly and my own writing and nothing has been rejected yet. *knocks on smut*
I've found that more often then not i reject a lot of the word order changes unless it is something that actually makes sense. I've been learning to not accept every comma recommendation either especially in dialogue. It would be easy to accept every change without thinking about it, I think the real trick is keeping the context and feel of your own words while considering why the change is recommended.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I love Words' reaction to "bad words," you get a blue line under Bastard; it says, "This may offend readers." Fuck, Word says, "This is an offensive word, consider changing." Bitch, "Offensive word."

And I scream at Word, "Damn it, Janet, we have to offend someone, this smut!"

 

[acguy]

I have Grammarly Pro which I use strictly for spelling and punctuation. My last three stories have been rejected due to possible AI. I ran my last story through the AI Content Detector and got a score of 96% Human generated. I am at a loss on what to do. I am sick and tired of receiving the AI rejection form letter with no further explanation. I have 15 published stories and never had an issue until now. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I have Grammarly Pro which I use strictly for spelling and punctuation. My last three stories have been rejected due to possible AI. I ran my last story through the AI Content Detector and got a score of 96% Human generated. I am at a loss on what to do. I am sick and tired of receiving the AI rejection form letter with no further explanation. I have 15 published stories and never had an issue until now. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Wow, man, thanks for adding your experience. I'm sorry as hell this has happened to you.
From what I have read on the AI threads, dialogue seems to pop up with some frequency. If your dialogue is too perfect and not like people actually speak, it might appear to be AI. So using words like gotta, gonna, ain't, ya know, umm, and others might be a good idea if you're not already. Dialogue should sound natural.

How does your work sound in that area?