Best current guidance on Literotica and AI

[EmilyMiller]

Dolphins are just as bad. As for orca…?

Emily

Sharks kill and eat things. Dolphins play/torture/rape their food (including for orcas, somewhat ironically, seals) then kill and eat it - though maybe in the opposite order.

Emily

 

[KeithD]

To clarify. Behind the scenes Grammarly is using GAI (and existing published work) to come up with those suggestions. This is not always advertized to users.

from the horses mouth - not that Laurel is a horse (maybe a graceful female centaur). So no, not inconsistent.

Emily

Again, the reaction file on the discussion board on AI rejects indicates that too much is being misconstrued and rejected. It doesn't matter where Grammarly gets its suggestions--or human editors have gotten theirs. The author still has to decide whether to take suggestions or not. The current rejection process for AI here is, I think, overkill and is based on incomplete detection processes and knee jerking a small issue into a larger one.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Again, the reaction file on the discussion board on AI rejects indicates that too much is being misconstrued and rejected. It doesn't matter where Grammarly gets its suggestions--or human editors have gotten theirs. The author still has to decide whether to take suggestions or not. The current rejection process for AI here is, I think, overkill and is based on incomplete detection processes and knee jerking a small issue into a larger one.

Telling the wrong woman, hun.

I’m just passing on stuff.

Emily

 

[samhasstories]

Again, the reaction file on the discussion board on AI rejects indicates that too much is being misconstrued and rejected. It doesn't matter where Grammarly gets its suggestions--or human editors have gotten theirs. The author still has to decide whether to take suggestions or not. The current rejection process for AI here is, I think, overkill and is based on incomplete detection processes and knee jerking a small issue into a larger one.

How do you know it's a small issue? The false positives have been reported, we know they're an issue, and they're unfortunate. But we have no way of knowing how many legitimately AI-generated works are being rightly flagged and blocked. It sounds like Laurel is saying there are a lot of them. We don't really have anything to go on but her word.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

How do you know it's a small issue? The false positives have been reported, we know they're an issue, and they're unfortunate. But we have no way of knowing how many legitimately AI-generated works are being rightly flagged and blocked. It sounds like Laurel is saying there are a lot of them. We don't really have anything to go on but her word.

And we are all playing in her sandbox for free, so I'd suggest her word is what matters.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Please note the minor updates just made to the first post - these are based on feedback from the site.

Emily

 

[KeithD]

How do you know it's a small issue? The false positives have been reported, we know they're an issue, and they're unfortunate. But we have no way of knowing how many legitimately AI-generated works are being rightly flagged and blocked. It sounds like Laurel is saying there are a lot of them. We don't really have anything to go on but her word.

How do you know it's a large issue? The evidence that writers are getting rejected for it here while disagreeing they are using AI has been running for a couple of months. You acknowledge that. You don't give evidence of anything else. What Laurel says she is blocking includes ones writers here disagree should be blocked, so that's a suspect position. Some of them also report that they can't establish communications with her on the issue.

 

[KeithD]

And we are all playing in her sandbox for free, so I'd suggest her word is what matters.

Baldly true, but a mushy charge that a writer's work isn't really their work is one of the worst insults that can be lowered on a writer if untrue, and the number of problems reported justifies the word "mushy," I think. I, for one, if accused of using AI, will be gone from here. Others can spend their time learning how to bah like a sheep, if they want.

 

[samhasstories]

How do you know it's a large issue? The evidence that writers are getting rejected for it here while disagreeing they are using AI has been running for a couple of months. You acknowledge that. You don't give evidence of anything else. What Laurel says she is blocking includes ones writers here disagree should be blocked, so that's a suspect position. Some of them also report that they can't establish communications with her on the issue.

I don't know it's a large issue. There's only one person who knows the extent of the issue. That's Laurel, and she's saying it's a large issue. I don't have any evidence to refute her claims; nor does anyone else.

 

[EmilyMiller]

How do you know it's a large issue? The evidence that writers are getting rejected for it here while disagreeing they are using AI has been running for a couple of months. You acknowledge that. You don't give evidence of anything else. What Laurel says she is blocking includes ones writers here disagree should be blocked, so that's a suspect position. Some of them also report that they can't establish communications with her on the issue.

Again in the interests of balance (and not just giving carte blanche to the site) I’m told by Laurel that the most frequent thing is that authors modify passages where they relied on Grammarly and the work then gets published. No I don’t have percentages, but, even on the AI threads, people have said that work which was previously rejected, has then been published.

We are talking here about what I think are the edge cases, which must be very stressful for the authors involved. Given the number of stories successfully published each day, I don’t think this is AI carnage, though I totally understand it feeling like that for those involved.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

I don't know it's a large issue. There's only one person who knows the extent of the issue. That's Laurel, and she's saying it's a large issue. I don't have any evidence to refute her claims; nor does anyone else.

As per my 17:00 EST update - it has become a large issue for other sites and Laurel is very focused on that not happening here.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think this is my issue. I used Grammarly in the first few parts - and I was willing to admit that - but I think it's now working against me in that my word is no longer enough to get those parts through, even when the edits have been made.

Ultimately, this is an issue of my own making and I get the feeling that the trust that I would need to pass through the system just isn't going to exist. Whatever is going on with my lack of approval, is because of me and I think I need to accept that my time here is done - even if it did only just start.

Hey,

Don’t give up yet. I’m gonna make this a personal crusade, OK?

Emily

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think this is my issue. I used Grammarly in the first few parts - and I was willing to admit that - but I think it's now working against me in that my word is no longer enough to get those parts through, even when the edits have been made.

Ultimately, this is an issue of my own making and I get the feeling that the trust that I would need to pass through the system just isn't going to exist. Whatever is going on with my lack of approval, is because of me and I think I need to accept that my time here is done - even if it did only just start.

You said somewhere, I think, that you do a lot of business writing? Grammarly might be okay for that - it's utter rubbish for fiction, from the cursory look I gave it, years ago - but if you scrub your day to day work stuff through it regularly, it's going to seep into your brain with it's bland, standardised, corporatised jargon, which you don't want at all.

Might I suggest you quit the stories you have now, and go away and read read read as much as you possibly can, to see what "works" for erotica. Maybe reprogram your brain? Check out what other writers do - hunt down the best of them here, learn to discriminate what's good, what's bad.

Here's a tip - go read anything by Dr Mabeuse. He died not long ago, so he's got no play in this game, but for wide ranging erotica, he's one of Lit's heavyweights. Or Sam Scribble.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Baldly true, but a mushy charge that a writer's work isn't really their work is one of the worst insults that can be lowered on a writer if untrue, and the number of problems reported justifies the word "mushy," I think. I, for one, if accused of using AI, will be gone from here. Others can spend their time learning how to bah like a sheep, if they want.

Did you use ChatGPT to write that response?

Edited to account for @KeithD's inability to infer...

 

[KeithD]

Did you use. ChatGPT go write that response?

No. Is there an English translation available for your post?

 

[KeithD]

Again in the interests of balance (and not just giving carte blanche to the site) I’m told by Laurel that the most frequent thing is that authors modify passages where they relied on Grammarly and the work then gets published. No I don’t have percentages, but, even on the AI threads, people have said that work which was previously rejected, has then been published.

We are talking here about what I think are the edge cases, which must be very stressful for the authors involved. Given the number of stories successfully published each day, I don’t think this is AI carnage, though I totally understand it feeling like that for those involved.

Emily

You know, I'm not much for this third-party explanations of Laurel's positions. She can come here and dialogue herself. It's obviously a problem for writers here, as it's been dominating the AH for several weeks. (And, no, I don't see the construction of a story file here as being all about the site owners.)

I would think that the writers here who see Literotica as a support for developing their writing ability would balk at use of an aid such as Grammarly resulting in rejections here. I don't use Grammarly myself, but it's been discussed here as a writer's development tool.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Well that has convinced me to stay with the free version of Grammarly. If the rewording function their sub service offers, might get you flagged, it's not worth it.

 

[Voboy]

I'm following this with interest. Thanks, Em, for posting it, but I can't help but wonder why Laurel's not simply starting threads like this herself. If the info is coming from her (I believe that it is?), then cutting out the middlewoman (delightful though she often is!) seems like an easy fix?

Clearly I don't know. But this is a topic that affects me professionally, too, so I'm keenly interested in what happens.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'm following this with interest. Thanks, Em, for posting it, but I can't help but wonder why Laurel's not simply starting threads like this herself. If the info is coming from her (I believe that it is?), then cutting out the middlewoman (delightful though she often is!) seems like an easy fix?

Clearly I don't know. But this is a topic that affects me professionally, too, so I'm keenly interested in what happens.

I think she’s taking advantage of my superior communication skills and lucid prose (translation: I’m much more anally retentive).

Emily

 

[SofiaLaFrench]

Well that has convinced me to stay with the free version of Grammarly. If the rewording function their sub service offers, might get you flagged, it's not worth it.

I use the free version, and I reject some of its grammar recommendations. I’ve run a few of my stories through AI detectors and they come back as <2% probably of being AI.

 

[samhasstories]

Baldly true, but a mushy charge that a writer's work isn't really their work is one of the worst insults that can be lowered on a writer if untrue, and the number of problems reported justifies the word "mushy," I think. I, for one, if accused of using AI, will be gone from here. Others can spend their time learning how to bah like a sheep, if they want.

Whether you bah like the rest of us or not, you’re just as powerless to affect the process. May as well enjoy the rut in the meantime.

Though to your point, I probably wouldn’t linger long either if my stories were getting sent back. Not to encourage other folks to lose heart. Fight on, if you want.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I appreciate it, but you really don't have to. There is no guarantee, if I can get part 5 through, that I won't keep getting hit by rejections. I think that's the kicker in all this because I have no idea why I keep getting flagged, especially to this extent. It's probably going to keep happening no matter what I try.

I’ve PMed you…

 

[32aa]

I use the free version, and I reject some of its grammar recommendations. I’ve run a few of my stories through AI detectors and they come back as <2% probably of being AI.

I that and have your dialog between your characters like a person would normally talk... contractions, euphemisms, slang, pauses in conversation, you should be fine. Just my two cents worth.

 

[Voboy]

I think she’s taking advantage of my superior communication skills and lucid prose (translation: I’m much more anally retentive).

Emily

I think it's more likely she knows what kinds of slings and arrows come at threads like this, and she's too busy to want to deal with them herself. I can't say I blame her, as long as you're willing.

Full disclosure, I'm one of those who've received prompt and courteous responses from Laurel, always. But to be fair, I've never really needed her for all that much. I'm not a guy who gets outraged easily.

I would love it (not that I have any pull here at all) if, in the interests of transparency, they'd create a FAQ spelling out this process fully and dispassionately, and not make Em be first into the breach. However! I do recognize we're dealing with a site owned by people who have been scrupulously careful NOT to be transparent when the issue is giving writers workarounds for site policies; this is the reason why they're opaque about the sweeps, too. They know any amount of information from them is likely to spawn countermeasures and loopholes, which they do not desire.

So it's nothing more than I expect, honestly. I do feel the frustration of those who've been false-positived, and I can only hope I don't have to go through it myself at any point.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think it's more likely she knows what kinds of slings and arrows come at threads like this, and she's too busy to want to deal with them herself. I can't say I blame her, as long as you're willing.

Full disclosure, I'm one of those who've received prompt and courteous responses from Laurel, always. But to be fair, I've never really needed her for all that much. I'm not a guy who gets outraged easily.

I would love it (not that I have any pull here at all) if, in the interests of transparency, they'd create a FAQ spelling out this process fully and dispassionately, and not make Em be first into the breach. However! I do recognize we're dealing with a site owned by people who have been scrupulously careful NOT to be transparent when the issue is giving writers workarounds for site policies; this is the reason why they're opaque about the sweeps, too. They know any amount of information from them is likely to spawn countermeasures and loopholes, which they do not desire.

So it's nothing more than I expect, honestly. I do feel the frustration of those who've been false-positived, and I can only hope I don't have to go through it myself at any point.

To be fair, no one is making me stick my head above the parapet. Well they do have the photos, and I mostly don’t want to embarrass the horse.

Emily