Best current guidance on Literotica and AI

[EmilyMiller]

This is manifestly untrue.... whoever told you that was straight out lying

Citation please.

Emily

 

[StillStunned]

I am told by my IT professionals ( I don't have the expertise in this personally) that Meta's new LLM Llarma 2 in fiction writing mode when correctly trained offline in specific fiction writing and correctly prompted (this isn't like a chat he showed me the page it's really complicated and almost like computer code programming to input to) is completely indistinguishable from the writing of the original authors in the training subset.

Completely and utterly Indistinguishable

IT professionals have been saying the same thing about machine translation for decades. I work with translators: they can spot MT a mile off, and no, it's nowhere near as good.

 

[STrent]

Citation please.

Emily

I’ve had 32 AI rejections in total, over February 2024.

It wasn’t rare for me, it became a fairly comprehensive daily occurrence.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’ve had 32 AI rejections in total, over February 2024.

It wasn’t rare for me, it became a fairly comprehensive daily occurrence.

It’s not rare for individuals. It’s rare compared to the overall number of stories published.

If you get into purgatory, it seems hard to get out of it.

Emily

 

[STrent]

It’s not rare for individuals. It’s rare compared to the overall number of stories published.

I concur, fair comment.

If you get into purgatory, it seems hard to get out of it.

Emily

It has required a big change in writing style, particularly in paragraphing, but it seems to be working currently. 15 in a row so far without an AI accusation.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I concur, fair comment.



It has required a big change in writing style, particularly in paragraphing, but it seems to be working currently. 15 in a row so far without an AI accusation.

That’s great - not that you had to change, but that it worked.

Emily

 

[Bramblethorn]

I am told by my IT professionals ( I don't have the expertise in this personally) that Meta's new LLM Llarma 2 in fiction writing mode when correctly trained offline in specific fiction writing and correctly prompted (this isn't like a chat he showed me the page it's really complicated and almost like computer code programming to input to) is completely indistinguishable from the writing of the original authors in the training subset.

"Completely indistinguishable" to whom? Tested how? And are we talking whole stories, or short passages? IME the longer LLMs go on, the more visible their weaknesses become.

Quite frankly these people have profited for DECADES off Authors giving them their work for free and now they disrespect them?

Or, "these people" have provided free web hosting for authors for DECADES.

 

[Voboy]

Quite frankly these people have profited for DECADES off Authors giving them their work for free and now they disrespect them?

Fuck Laurel and her witch hunt.... I'm out of here

I don't feel disrespected by the site. I never have. They provide me with a platform and ask very little in return; I'm fine with that, and so are many, many others. You see, they DO NOT lack for submissions. So they are unlikely to care if you leave. That's why they can do what they want.

You're free to do what you want, too. Fare thee well.

 

[alohadave]

I don't feel disrespected by the site. I never have. They provide me with a platform and ask very little in return; I'm fine with that, and so are many, many others. You see, they DO NOT lack for submissions. So they are unlikely to care if you leave. That's why they can do what they want.

You're free to do what you want, too. Fare thee well.

As the song goes:

She's happy that you're here
But when you disappear
She won't know that you're gone to say goodbye

 

[Codoc24]

https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/

This site was listed earlier in this thread. My story that was rejected for AI received a 98% human written. I ran it through 4 other AI scanners and they all said it was written by human. I really don't know what to change so it passes LitE's AI scanner. So I may not even try. At least it was a pretty short story and so I didn't spend a lot of time writing it. It does, though, discourage me from writing another story for this site. I don't want to waste my time and my editor's time. I haven't decided yet. I'm not against this site scanning for AI content, I'm just a little doubtful as to how reliable it is.

 

[EmilyMiller]

https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/

This site was listed earlier in this thread. My story that was rejected for AI received a 98% human written. I ran it through 4 other AI scanners and they all said it was written by human. I really don't know what to change so it passes LitE's AI scanner. So I may not even try. At least it was a pretty short story and so I didn't spend a lot of time writing it. It does, though, discourage me from writing another story for this site. I don't want to waste my time and my editor's time. I haven't decided yet. I'm not against this site scanning for AI content, I'm just a little doubtful as to how reliable it is.

No one knows what Laurel uses, but I do know it’s not a free-to-use tool.

I also know that the most common issue is suggestions made by Grammarly which uses GAI.

Do either you or your editor use Grammarly?

Emily

 

[overwatcher]

No one knows what Laurel uses, but I do know it’s not a free-to-use tool.

I also know that the most common issue is suggestions made by Grammarly which uses GAI.

Do either you or your editor use Grammarly?

Emily

Yep, Grammarly is gone burger, it's use and any reference to it. I don't know if there is a link to that but more stories have been sent back since I started mentioning I use it. And I'm not about to argue the point about it - colour it gone.

 

[StillStunned]

If I may ask, why do people use Grammarly in the first place? Because they're uncertain about their grammar?

This might be an unpopular opinion, but if you're serious about writing, even just for fun, the logical move would be to brush up on grammatical rules. I'm sure there are free online courses. Spend a few hours on one of those, particularly if you know what your weak spota are, and you'll be a better writer.

You'll know why a sentence works the way it does, and what leeway you have for playing with the rules, instead of relying on a machine to shore up the problem areas.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

If I may ask, why do people use Grammarly in the first place? Because they're uncertain about their grammar?

This might be an unpopular opinion, but if you're serious about writing, even just for fun, the logical move would be to brush up on grammatical rules. I'm sure there are free online courses. Spend a few hours on one of those, particularly if you know what your weak spota are, and you'll be a better writer.

You'll know why a sentence works the way it does, and what leeway you have for playing with the rules, instead of relying on a machine to shore up the problem areas.

Brushing up on every grammatical rule in existence isn't as easy as it sounds. But effort aside, you are not going to catch every spelling or grammar error as well or as easily as Grammarly does. I can personally say that using Grammarly for spelling and grammar helped me a lot to improve my own knowledge of grammar, and made my error-checking much faster. Machines can help you learn and thanks to that, I make fewer mistakes than I used to. That being said, I do not let Grammarly rewrite anything I write; I use it to correct my spelling errors or tense usage only.

There is a fine line between using tools to make the writing process easier, faster, and less tedious, and letting those same tools write for you. The same could be said in every profession basically. I mean, we could revert back to doing manual calculations for everything rather than using tools like calculators, Excel and such, not to even mention some more complex mathematical tools. The bottom line for me is to use every tool available as long as the tool helps with the technical aspect of your work only and doesn't impact the meaning or the substance of your work in any way.

 

[XerXesXu]

This is an indication of the way the world is going and going so quickly.

10 Best AI Story Generators.

In an ideal world there would be sites that could have policies that they host HI only stories, AI only stories, or both and writers and readers, who care about these things, could choose where they posted or read. Lit hosts a sex-positive adults only site for humans. At the moment, there's no way to check compliance with either the age or the human authorship criteria. Age is a paper-thin box tick exercise. Who would be happy with a tick box exercise for Human authorship? I sense, not many. Writers who write 'competitively' want fair competition. Readers may be less fussy.

It's in the nature of neural networks that general Human Intelligence is more versatile and powerful than AI and can learn to discriminate better than AI Detectors between Human and AI products. Laurel has a great deal of exposure to writing of both types and will develop a gut feeling, which may not be perfect, but will be better than any AI tool she uses to assist.

I don't know whether those who say they don't use AI don't, or do but are trying it on. I'm inclined to accept that most of those who say they don't, don't. I sympathise with their predicament, but I don't think there's anything to be done about it but hope that Laurel's ability to detect AI improves more quickly than AI AI detectors.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

If I may ask, why do people use Grammarly in the first place? Because they're uncertain about their grammar?

This might be an unpopular opinion, but if you're serious about writing, even just for fun, the logical move would be to brush up on grammatical rules. I'm sure there are free online courses. Spend a few hours on one of those, particularly if you know what your weak spota are, and you'll be a better writer.

You'll know why a sentence works the way it does, and what leeway you have for playing with the rules, instead of relying on a machine to shore up the problem areas.

I tried using it about two years ago. My reason for it was simple: Somehow, my MS Word did not care whenever I accidentally typed "to" instead of "too". And, while I was relatively sure of how commas work, the suggestions kept discouraging me.

The whole Grammarly thing died for me, though, when it simply didn't perform. If I used it in MS Word, it kept listing thousands of things it wanted me to address, but before it displayed them, it reset and started counting up again in an endless loop. Then I tried the Firefox Extension with Google Docs, and it simply crashed my browser while trying to analyze the text.

When I eventually got it to work, it turned out to be just as useful as MS Word's own grammar checker, but it did catch typos a little better than Word.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I tried using it about two years ago. My reason for it was simple: Somehow, my MS Word did not care whenever I accidentally typed "to" instead of "too". And, while I was relatively sure of how commas work, the suggestions kept discouraging me.

The whole Grammarly thing died for me, though, when it simply didn't perform. If I used it in MS Word, it kept listing thousands of things it wanted me to address, but before it displayed them, it reset and started counting up again in an endless loop. Then I tried the Firefox Extension with Google Docs, and it simply crashed my browser while trying to analyze the text.

When I eventually got it to work, it turned out to be just as useful as MS Word's own grammar checker, but it did catch typos a little better than Word.

Experiences vary, I guess. In my own experience, Grammarly is vastly superior to MS Word spelling and grammar check by the sheer variety of grammar errors it catches. I used MS Word from the very start and I thought I didn't need anything else, but finding Grammarly and using it in Word made me realize that I was making certain subtle mistakes all along.

 

[djrip]

If I may ask, why do people use Grammarly in the first place? Because they're uncertain about their grammar?

This might be an unpopular opinion, but if you're serious about writing, even just for fun, the logical move would be to brush up on grammatical rules. I'm sure there are free online courses. Spend a few hours on one of those, particularly if you know what your weak spota are, and you'll be a better writer.

You'll know why a sentence works the way it does, and what leeway you have for playing with the rules, instead of relying on a machine to shore up the problem areas.

Why do people have editors?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Why do people have editors?

I was thinking of mentioning that too I mean, how is it worse to use a tool to fix your grammar and spelling than using a beta reader or editor to proofread your story and point out the fallacies? It can easily be argued that a beta reader or an editor gives you far more feedback and influences your writing in a far more profound way than a simple grammar-correcting tool.

 

[StillStunned]

Why do people have editors?

In the case of my clients: mostly because I've convinced them that they need to pay me lots of money.

But I think there's a difference between having a skilled editor go through your text and highlight weaknesses and relying on a grammar tool to tell you the basics of grammar. Who here is writing such convoluted English that, as native speakers, they need a machine to tell them rules that they don't already know, or at least couldn't learn with a little application?

I'm saying this as a professional editor with an MA in English: you don't need to know the minutiae of English grammar to write a good story.

 

[Bamagan]

Why do people have editors?

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

In the case of my clients: mostly because I've convinced them that they need to pay me lots of money.

But I think there's a difference between having a skilled editor go through your text and highlight weaknesses and relying on a grammar tool to tell you the basics of grammar. Who here is writing such convoluted English that, as native speakers, they need a machine to tell them rules that they don't already know, or at least couldn't learn with a little application?

I'm saying this as a professional editor with an MA in English: you don't need to know the minutiae of English grammar to write a good story.

No offense, mate, but I think that's exactly the reason why you have such a hard time understanding it. You might not need it to write a good story... but if you want people to not have a hard time reading it, spelling and proper grammar go a long way.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

The scanners only examine sentence structure and language. They don't consider coherence, pace, length, or frequency of paragraphs. Long paragraphs, illogical changes inside paragraphs, and no roller coaster effect in sentences and paragraphs are marks of AI. Perhaps paid AI detectors look at those, but they will more than likely give a percentage of provability based on those metrics. AI doesn't do many short paragraphs or one-line, one-word paragraphs. They don't do many short sentences, a few, but not a lot.

Again, we have no idea what metric, software, or human factors are intermixed with those to determine the why of any of this. Still, with a little research one can figure out what you're doing wrong. The problem is, for those not making money on this, why bother? There are plenty of other sites on the internet. None as big, but none as picky either. But finding the gems on those sites might be a lot harder for all the fodder on them.

 

[lustychimera]

I am told by my IT professionals ( I don't have the expertise in this personally) that Meta's new LLM Llarma 2 in fiction writing mode when correctly trained offline in specific fiction writing and correctly prompted (this isn't like a chat he showed me the page it's really complicated and almost like computer code programming to input to) is completely indistinguishable from the writing of the original authors in the training subset.

Completely and utterly Indistinguishable

Let that sink in

The horse is bolted and now Laurel is just slamming the gate on it's tail ...again and again

Quite frankly these people have profited for DECADES off Authors giving them their work for free and now they disrespect them?

Fuck Laurel and her witch hunt.... I'm out of here

You think us authors on this site are just hapless morons who don't realize that we're posting stuff for free to sometime else's benefit?

Speak for yourself.

It's work on my end; it's work on the site's. I'm happy with the arrangement. They give me a free and easy place to post, and I help give them an audience to post ads to.

 

[alohadave]

If I may ask, why do people use Grammarly in the first place? Because they're uncertain about their grammar?

This might be an unpopular opinion, but if you're serious about writing, even just for fun, the logical move would be to brush up on grammatical rules. I'm sure there are free online courses. Spend a few hours on one of those, particularly if you know what your weak spota are, and you'll be a better writer.

You'll know why a sentence works the way it does, and what leeway you have for playing with the rules, instead of relying on a machine to shore up the problem areas.

It's a third pass to check for grammar errors after self-editing and Word grammar check.

It's always good to get someone or something else to review your work because everyone goes blind to mistakes after a couple passes.

I'm a little surprised that a professional editor is advising not to use tools to double check the text.