Best current guidance on Literotica and AI

[Cagivagurl]

My favourite bit of the article is the casual mention of seals killing and eating the penguin What I've learnt is to stay away from the seals

Nobody likes a blown seal....
Everything just oozes out.

 

[Voboy]

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

Good point.

That goddamn horse...

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Nobody likes a blown seal....
Everything just oozes out.

So we’re back to seal/penguin sex.

 

[EmilyMiller]

So we’re back to seal/penguin sex.

Somehow…

 

[KeithD]

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.

This isn't my first account. I've been here since 2006 and since that time have posted some 1,600 works here across my accounts. I don't think I need to be told how the process works here.

 

[Mogrem]

I've always sort of assumed the same. The amount of blue squiggly lines Word adds to my work that I don't heed seems to reinforce that I'm not writing like the Machines think I should.

The obvious solution is for us all to keep editing until every line of every story has a blue wiggly line. If Microsoft hates it, publish it.

This makes sense. My stories use Australian/Australasian/UK based grammar, colloquialisms, shortened words and spoken sentences like we normally do. We run our sentences together a lot and finish sentences abruptly not necessarily with full explanation. Also, you'll find our talking on the whole is faster and we swear a lot more. For a while Grammarly tried to disagree with all of that first offering alternative construct and then subscription to an 'enhanced' version. All of which I've not used and to a greater extent Grammarly has laid off on suggestions and maybe sees me as a lost cause, hopefully. I now use G for grammar, as a guideline, sparingly. Thanks Emily.

Grammarly turns British English into mincemeat. I had to ask people at work to stop using it because it made everything sound like an American academic live translating from the original German.

Fun fact: I know they say ChatGTP/GDP/HeebieGeebies is fed from millions of sources, but I am convinced I know the real and sole source. Its a guy I get emailed by at work. For a decade his emails have always been written in precisely the unbearably fussy and verbose way the AI underlords are now rewriting everyone elses' dirge to sound like.

 

[HeyAll]

Thanks for the info. It's amazing how one person approvals all the stories.

And the site is correct in imposing standards. In my opinion, and I've mentioned this before, but using the word "and" in between two similarly meaning words is a hallmark of AI writing.

Example: It's a beautiful day, warm and sunny.

The last part being redundant is often used with AI writing. So I recommend limiting and/or avoiding that.

 

[StillStunned]

Thanks for the info. It's amazing how one person approvals all the stories.

And the site is correct in imposing standards. In my opinion, and I've mentioned this before, but using the word "and" in between two similarly meaning words is a hallmark of AI writing.

Example: It's a beautiful day, warm and sunny.

The last part being redundant is often used with AI writing. So I recommend limiting and/or avoiding that.

I do that all the time. Not had any problems so far. But then, I don't do it in every paragraph.

From what I've seen of AI-generated texts, the big issue is that they tell, don't show. This was the situation, these were the characters, they did this and this and this. The end. Tag a moral on and you've got yourself a parable.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Thanks for the info. It's amazing how one person approvals all the stories.

And the site is correct in imposing standards. In my opinion, and I've mentioned this before, but using the word "and" in between two similarly meaning words is a hallmark of AI writing.

Example: It's a beautiful day, warm and sunny.

The last part being redundant is often used with AI writing. So I recommend limiting and/or avoiding that.

Except, " It's a beautiful day, warm, sunny," reads terribly.

"Warm and sunny" has been used as a common phrase forever. That's probably why it's in the AI "most used" data set, but that doesn't make it a hallmark of AI writing - it's a commonly used phrase.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Except, " It's a beautiful day, warm, sunny," reads terribly.

"Warm and sunny" has been used as a common phrase forever. That's probably why it's in the AI "most used" data set, but that doesn't make it a hallmark of AI writing - it's a commonly used phrase.

AI is commonly used phrases - that’s how LLMs work. They aren’t generalized AI with a rudimentary understanding of meaning. They do statistical analyses of existing text. So of course they tend to the bland center.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

I added a banner to the original post and altered a few bits and pieces, the intent being to reiterate that this is not an official announcement, or even one by proxy.

Emily

 

[KeithD]

I don't think anyone should have to alter their own writing style just to get their original work past an AI checker at Literotica.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I don't think anyone should have to alter their own writing style just to get their original work past an AI checker at Literotica.

The most common issue is where the author has got Grammarly to alter their writing style. It’s not the only issue, but it’s the most frequent.

I fail to understand the allure of Grammarly to be honest.

Emily

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I don't think anyone should have to alter their own writing style just to get their original work past an AI checker at Literotica.

It's not a matter of should, it's practicality. If your style doesn't get past the current gatekeeper, whatever that is, AI or otherwise, then you can either suffer the rebukes of the gatekeeper, or you can change your style. One you have complete control over. One you do not.

 

[KeithD]

It's not a matter of should, it's practicality. If your style doesn't get past the current gatekeeper, whatever that is, AI or otherwise, then you can either suffer the rebukes of the gatekeeper, or you can change your style. One you have complete control over. One you do not.

Or the site can back away from "iffy" scrutiny programs until they no longer are "iffy." The choice isn't really take it or leave it in the long run. As the better writers "leave it," the reputation of the site goes down. I've laid down in the sand what I'll do with my stories, which are completely original--because I neither rely on AI nor read what others are writing in my genres--if I get what will be a totally false and insulting rejection for AI use. And the site can take that into account on their decisions. I don't claim it will have any effect on their decisions, but I see--and operate--with the view that this is a partnership if they want a high-quality site, not a dictatorship.

Some posters here are operating from the view that the Website is set up to help them develop as a writer. (I don't think that's so with a lot of story contributors here, but it is a view held by some who emphasis quality at this site.) That isn't being served if writers are checking their writing through a technical aid program such as Grammarly (which, yes, is more for business writing than fiction, but if the writer some knowledge of writing they can get additional developmental help from Grammarly) and they are getting rejected for use of AI. I think AI identification is still at the point of picking construction that is just in common usage and is being employed naturally by writers within the confines of their own writing style. I don't think anyone should have to change their own writing style just to have a story posted at Literotica. If Literotica demands that of any of my stories, they won't get the story for their file.

 

[djrip]

I find this whole let's try to tweak our writing until it gets past the bot business abhorrent. I find the advice to use AI detectors and keep tweaking and changing anything the robot flags repulsive. That is actually letting an AI control your work, much more than taking some grammar suggestions from Word is. The whole point is supposed to be to have human writing.

Keith has made the most sense in this thread. The site is clearly taking actions that are counter to the goal of human writing, as it is forcing people to change their human work until a robot approves it. So the robot is the final author on that. The site is clearly using useless and inaccurate methods (no AI detectors are more accurate than a coin flip) which produce massive false positives. There have been claims that there are even more massive amounts of actual AI submissions being caught, but there is no evidence of that. As far as anyone can know, including Laurel, every single story rejected for AI based on detection software might have been a false positive.

Let's review the pros and cons. Zero tolerance of suspected AI means tons of human authors get rejected or let a robot influence their work to get past the rejection. At the same time, I'm sure it also means actual AI writing gets through, because, as stated, detectors are worthless. A more sensible policy like rejecting things that look egregiously like AI - to an actual human reader - but taking very seriously authors' subsequent resubmissions and usually publishing after an author explains their process or certifies they didn't use AI, would get rid of most of the headache for authors, while still allowing the removal of things that are obviously shit. The cost? A few more AI stories might get through. If something got through and then got tons of reports from readers, it could be still taken down then, or re-reviewed with renewed skepticism.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Or the site can back away from "iffy" scrutiny programs until they no longer are "iffy." The choice isn't really take it or leave it in the long run. As the better writers "leave it," the reputation of the site goes down. I've laid down in the sand what I'll do it with my stories, which are completely original--because I neither rely on AI nor read what others are writing in my genres--if I get what will be a totally false and insulting rejection for AI use. And the site can take that into account on their decisions. I don't claim it will have any effect on their decisions, but I see--and operate--with the view that this is a partnership if they want a high-quality site, not a dictatorship.

Some posters here are operating from the view that the Website is set up to help them develop as a writer. (I don't think that's so with a lot of story contributors here, but it is a view held by some who emphasis quality at this site.) That isn't being served if writers are checking their writing through a technical aid programs such as Grammarly (which, yes, is more for business writing than fiction, but if the writer some knowledge of writing they can get additional developmental help from Grammarly) and they are getting rejected for use of AI. I think AI identification is still at the point of picking construction that is just in common usage and is being employed naturally by writers within the confines of their own writing style. I don't think anyone should have to change their own writing style just to have a story posted at Literotica. If Literotica demands that of any of my stories, they won't get the story for their file.

You're missing my point. You and I have no, zero, nada control of the site and what it does or doesn't do. If you want to publish on this site, you can follow the rules and meet the expectations of the site, or you can not get published. Period. Not up for discussion or debate unless you just want to argue about something you can't change.

As for this site being set up to let writers improve their craft, it has served that purpose for me. My writing has improved immensely since I published my first tory. I'm also well aware that there are a lot of other parts of this site that carry advertising and possibly some that are fee based(I don't know that for sure). The owners of the site obviously don't do this for free and we are a value add, as far as it goes. We bring eyes and clicks to their site. They have a vested interest in keeping us happy to a point, but a larger interest in protecting the reputation of the site.

As I've said many times, their pool, their rules. You can follow their rules or not. Won't matter much either way. Sure you have 500 stories and over 1200 followers, but none of those followers follow only you just like none of mine follow only me. In the grand scheme of things, if you and I left, no-one would notice or care with the small exception of the few 'friends' we may have made along the way.

Again; their pool, their rules.

 

[KeithD]

You're missing my point. You and I have no, zero, nada control of the site and what it does or doesn't do. I

Sorry, you're wrong. I've been here 18 years. Laurel has both called me a troll for my posts and asked my advice on what they should do with the Website. I'm a major contributor here and she's acknowledged it. That's not zero control. I see this issue--using currently false and iffy story content scrutiny programs on submissions--as important enough to establish a position on it to the effect of having the site reconsider its processes. I do expect the site to back off on AI scrutiny to some extent because the systems are faulty and because of the insulting effect it's having on submitters--as they have been attesting to on the AH.

I'm not posting on this for any real fear for my stories. My stories pass through quickly and are only extremely rarely questioned in any way (which in itself belies the "zero control" here of writers. Some of us are given more privileges than others are. Just the way it is). My fear is more for the effect this is having on "new blood" writers trying to come into the Website.

As a contributor of nearly 1,600 stories here over 18 years I just reject your "all or nothing" "point." I see the building of the file on Literotica--its most valuable asset--as being a partnership with the writers. I've seen instances when operating from this position has had an effect here. As it should, in my opinion.

 

[EmilyMiller]

As ever, this is flying off at a tangent.

The central issue is NOT authors having a style that trips AI detectors. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen, especially with people who have English as a second language, but a lot of rejections appear to be where an author has used Grammarly to change their style. And it has been flagged up.

Trapping that is not anti-human, it’s anti using AI as a crutch.

People are tilting at windmills about authors being forced to change their style, that’s a tiny fraction, it’s about authors letting Grammarly change their style.

If Grammarly says “your sentence would be better like this” it is using LLMs to provide that recommendation. I don’t see that as an aid to writing, I see that as outsourcing the writing to some tech.

Emily

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Sorry, you're wrong. I've been here 18 years. Laurel has both called me a troll for my posts and asked my advice on what they should do with the Website. I'm a major contributor here and she's acknowledged it. That's not zero control. I see this issue--using currently false and iffy story content scrutiny programs on submissions--as important enough to establish a position on it to the effect of having the site reconsider its processes. I do expect the site to back off on AI scrutiny to some extent because the systems are faulty and because of the insulting effect it's having on submitters--as they have been attesting to on the AH.

As a contributor of nearly 1,600 stories here over 18 years I just reject your "all or nothing" "point." I see the building of the file on Literotica--its most valuable asset--as being a partnership with the writers. I've seen instances when operating from this position has had an effect here. As it should, in my opinion.

You, or we, may have input, but we have zero control. As influential as you may or may not be, if you left it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of the site. No single writer is that important. There's just too much volume on the site that 1600 stories is going to make much of a difference. Kind of like pissing in the pond.
You are welcome to continue screaming from the rooftops if you like. That's up to you. If you have the influence you say, absolutely use it to try and make something happen.

I am absolutely not arguing with the fact that the that the current AI system is broken or that it should be addressed. My point is and has always been, we only control what we do and we should focus on that. Only Laurel and Manu can implement the things that need to happen. In the end it's still their pool, their rules.

 

[KeithD]

It isn't just me, Shelby. I'm the one getting post likes on this thread, not you. I'm voicing a concern that many have. You can play the "no control" position, if you like. I see myself as a partner here, not a bahhing sheep, and I'll post as such. There's no reason not to point to nonconstructive policies here to see what, if anything, can be improved. That the current AI scrutiny and rejection of stories that aren't legitimately being questioned is obvious from the discussion board take.

If, as you post you aren't "arguing with the fact that the current AI system is broken or that it should be addressed" I don't see your problem with writers here pointing on the discussion board to the problem and responding to the issue as partners in the product here rather than slaves to the site.

 

[Zootonius]

My two cents, I recall a repair shop with the sign, "Due to numerous complaints about our free service, it has been discontinued."

Complaining about the quality of something free to use is odd. Their house, their rules! This is a popular website run, I suspect, on a shoe string. And writers stay because it's better than the alternatives out there.

 

[KeithD]

Complaining about the quality of something free to use is odd. Their house, their rules! This is a popular website run, I suspect, on a shoe string. And writers stay because it's better than the alternatives out there.

This issue seems more about writers trying to arrive than those of us already here.

And, no, it isn't odd to be trying to participate at a Website where you are providing the product for free.

 

[KeithD]

I love how every AI thread ends with people who haven't gone through the rejections arguing against each other about what we should or shouldn't be doing to get around the block

So, those of us are not experiencing this--quite possibly from established privilege--aren't wanted to point to the problem and having empathy for those being affected? If so, got it. It's certainly easier for me to let you just fend for yourself on this. It's certainly less stressful for me not to be taking the flak from the "just roll over and take it" folks here.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Going back to my original; comment: "It's not a matter of should, it's practicality. If your style doesn't get past the current gatekeeper, whatever that is, AI or otherwise, then you can either suffer the rebukes of the gatekeeper, or you can change your style. One you have complete control over. One you do not."

Facts:

1. Today, right now, the admins of this site employ an AI check of some kind.
2. This AI checker seems to be style based.
3. You, me, the other writers that use this site have no control of the AI checker in place.
   1. We can try to influence to Admins, offer advice, bitch, complain, but they are the ones that decide.
4. We control the style of our stories, only us, no one else(unless you're using an AI to generate them)

It occurs to my obviously simplistic mind, that, as things work today, we can either meet the style guidelines or not have our stories published. It's not rocket science.

Since I made that comment, things seems to have escalated to a discussion of whether or not we should just accept that things are the way they are, or should we just lay back and take it. If you are not happy with the way things are and have 'influence', then by all means use it. Scream shout, pick fights with people you think disagree with you. Go for it. If you want to pack up your Legos and go play in a different sandbox, you're free to do that as well. These are all things you can control, choices you can make. What you can't control is the workings of this site behind the curtain. That ability is limited to, as far as I know, Laurel and Manu.

Maybe your influence works, maybe it doesn't. Until things change the facts above are the same.

If your stories are getting rejected for AI, you can either change them or accept that RIGHT NOW, they are not going to get published.