"AI" Rejection

[Mastered_again]

For the most part, AI writes in the past perfect tense. AI uses long sentences and uses and repeats words and phrases in its works. Opulent Room, opulent mansion, opulent this, that, and the other. Therefore, if you use a particular unique word often (as in not uniquely one time), that may trigger an AI rejection. I read a work proclaiming it was written by AI, and the past perfect tense, long, long sentences, and few shorter ones drove me insane. Also, paragraphs tended to be of almost entirely the same word count or with so little variation that it became painful to read.

It isn't certain whether anyone is writing this way or not. But if you do, even if the sentences pass the AIish phrasing, the repetition of words and phrases, lack of variation in a sentence, and paragraph length might trigger some software. I'm not trying to say this is the case. I'm saying that this is something to avoid.

That's one pitfall I try to avoid and that's the overuse of the same word. After about five proofs, I catch most of them. I try to write with a variety of paragraph lengths. Not much you can do about dialog; it has very specific conventions (in my mind). MY stories might not be that great/original, but at least I know they're grammatically correct and that no thinking machines were harmed creating it.

I doubt that I've ever used opulent in any of my works.

(There's only one way that I would use opulent and that's to describe my posterior)

 

[Thanatos_X13]

I too am having this issue atm. One my my works is held up in this AI debacle. I posted it and after the initial rejection I , as the comments suggested, re-posted it again adding a note that said i don't use AI. It got rejected again after spending more than 10 days in pedding. Now let me start by saying I don't use any tools that have any AI like Grammarly, ProWritingAid, Quillbot or similar other to write. I do all my work on word and work alongside a Lit editor to correct any grammatical or punctuation mistakes I might have. During the week+ period my story was in pending last time i tried many of the free AI detecting tools out there to surprising results. Turns out that this AI infection runs deeper than any one in the literary community could have ever imagined.

Somehow the AI got to many of the most renowned Authors. It has broken time and space to do so. Turns out many of Tolkien works are in "fact " AI generated. So too many of Stephen King's books are full of AI generated paragraphs, some I personally tested are up too 70% AI generated. Even the bible written so long ago hasn't been spared from the onslaught of the AI.

Now in al honesty the reason this AI detection tools says absurd things like that is that they were trains on those very books, and many more of course. And AI learned to write from them. Now if someone writes in those styles the AI say that that human work is AI generated. This I find absurd, that we now have to change our own writing style just to escape the AI labeling us as AI ourselfs.

And then what? Once we all have contorted our way around the AI ver sensitive triggers, and develop brand new writing style, just so that newer AI's are now trained on those very new styles and claimed them for there own too. I for one refuse to change the way I like to write just so that some AI detection filter is happy.

I will re submit my work once more adding a note once again explaining my reasoning. But I refuse to change a single comma to it. At this point my refusal to rewrite parts of my work is more out of moral indignation than anything else. I won't allow my work or my creative process to be degraded by some mindless tool.

I understand the lit staff is between a rock and a hard place atm. AI has ,I am sure made there work so much harder, blasting them whit 100's of truly AI generated content. I haven't said at any point that AI is not a problem. But they should figure out a way to screen for real AI work and not affect actual authors here. If wait times in pending have to go up significantly to do so I don't have any problems with that. But don't ask us to change our own writing styles or intentionally make mistakes just to jump thru some arbitrarily placed hoops to make whatever program you use to check for AI happy.

I wish you luck, but having been down this route myself, I'd say, just be prepared for it to be rejected after 10 days again. A lot of the advice on this forum to just put a note is either from 8 months ago when this issue was fresh and no one knew anything, or from people who mean well but also don't know anything. I haven't seen anyone say that this worked for them in a long time. I would be happy to be proven wrong. From my experience, you either edit your work to get past whatever screening process Lit uses or take your work elsewhere. Admin Notes or DMs to Laurel don't seem to move the needle. You either pass their process or don't.

I do agree 100% with your sentiment. It sucks, and these AI detectors are all bullshit. They flag the most inane shit. Sadly, I doubt that Lit is going to change anything. It seems we're the minority. A handful of invalid rejections is going to turn a few authors away, but there's still tons of stories being posted daily. Lit isn't going to miss us.

 

[GMicXXX]

I am having the same problem, although I am a new literotica author. Those who are saying "AI cannot write" have not used it properly. It's an *incredibly* powerful writing tool. It makes it more fun to write. It's almost like writing in tandem with someone - providing new ideas, different wording, and generally being an incredibly powerful assistant, in real-time.

My first two stories submitted to literotica were rejected with the same message as in the OP. These are stories where I would leverage AI throughout the writing process. It's my voice, my story, my characters, my work. I'm really proud of the results. I've done a great deal of writing, and even more reading. I know this is good work. Probably 50% of the text is actually written by the AI, but it's connecting the language, concepts, ideas, etc that I provide. And I am editing, tuning, and rewriting every line.

Writing with AI isn't "30 seconds". It takes me 4+ hours to write a 3,000 word story I'm happy with, and with AI it drops to 1-2. It's a massive accelerator, and the process is far more fun for me, which makes me write more often.

I understand the reasons (copyright of AI work is undetermined, and therefore a risk), but the community is missing out. AI writing assists are incredible and only getting better. They are being built into all author's standard tools ... it's going to be very difficult to find authors willing to write without them.

I write mostly for myself, but I wanted to share with the community as I know I would appreciate it if others did the same. Unfortunately, my stories are apparently not welcome, but I think they should be.

Happy to share my stories if anyone would like to see them. I'd even be willing to share work-in-progress shots of me writing with AI, so people can see what I mean. I think many of you would be shocked.

 

[AwkwardMD]

 

[MillieDynamite]

I read an AI story, I never used AI for a story. But if I did, I'd be smart enough to find and change the sentences that screamed AI.

I feel ya
regards
AI person

 

[Portly_Penguin]

Probably 50% of the text is actually written by the AI, but it's connecting the language, concepts, ideas, etc that I provide.

The difference is that you used AI to help you write it, regardless of how much editing you do to the piece. Most of us who are being hit with these rejections are being falsely accused. It's not the same thing.

 

[Thanatos_X13]

I am having the same problem, although I am a new literotica author. Those who are saying "AI cannot write" have not used it properly. It's an *incredibly* powerful writing tool. It makes it more fun to write. It's almost like writing in tandem with someone - providing new ideas, different wording, and generally being an incredibly powerful assistant, in real-time.

My first two stories submitted to literotica were rejected with the same message as in the OP. These are stories where I would leverage AI throughout the writing process. It's my voice, my story, my characters, my work. I'm really proud of the results. I've done a great deal of writing, and even more reading. I know this is good work. Probably 50% of the text is actually written by the AI, but it's connecting the language, concepts, ideas, etc that I provide. And I am editing, tuning, and rewriting every line.

Writing with AI isn't "30 seconds". It takes me 4+ hours to write a 3,000 word story I'm happy with, and with AI it drops to 1-2. It's a massive accelerator, and the process is far more fun for me, which makes me write more often.

I understand the reasons (copyright of AI work is undetermined, and therefore a risk), but the community is missing out. AI writing assists are incredible and only getting better. They are being built into all author's standard tools ... it's going to be very difficult to find authors willing to write without them.

I write mostly for myself, but I wanted to share with the community as I know I would appreciate it if others did the same. Unfortunately, my stories are apparently not welcome, but I think they should be.

Happy to share my stories if anyone would like to see them. I'd even be willing to share work-in-progress shots of me writing with AI, so people can see what I mean. I think many of you would be shocked.

You are not having the same problem. You are being validly rejected for violating the rules of the site. Your work is "50% written by AI," Lit's rules is 0%. Myself and many others do not use anything but our minds and a word processor. Some have beta readers and editors. All of it is human-driven. We are getting rejected invalidly by an obtuse and frustrating system that is designed to filter folks like you out. Sounds like at least that part is working, which is some kind of silver lining.

AI doesn't write, it steals and regurgitates. It is not a powerful tool, it is a theft system. A writer writes. The hours spent is the process, that is what defines the writer. If you're looking at 4 hours of work and going "Oh, that's too long, let me have this do the work for me," I don't know what you are, but you aren't a writer.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I am having the same problem, although I am a new literotica author. Those who are saying "AI cannot write" have not used it properly. It's an *incredibly* powerful writing tool. It makes it more fun to write. It's almost like writing in tandem with someone - providing new ideas, different wording, and generally being an incredibly powerful assistant, in real-time.

My first two stories submitted to literotica were rejected with the same message as in the OP. These are stories where I would leverage AI throughout the writing process. It's my voice, my story, my characters, my work. I'm really proud of the results. I've done a great deal of writing, and even more reading. I know this is good work. Probably 50% of the text is actually written by the AI, but it's connecting the language, concepts, ideas, etc that I provide. And I am editing, tuning, and rewriting every line.

These two paragraphs seem to contradict one another.

In the first paragraph, where you're arguing for the advantages of AI, you mention that it's "providing new ideas and different wording". But in the next, where you're asserting your ownership of the resulting work, apparently it's merely "connecting the language and ideas that I provide". Which is it?

 

[CatPerson]

I am having the same problem, although I am a new literotica author. Those who are saying "AI cannot write" have not used it properly. It's an *incredibly* powerful writing tool. It makes it more fun to write. It's almost like writing in tandem with someone - providing new ideas, different wording, and generally being an incredibly powerful assistant, in real-time.

My first two stories submitted to literotica were rejected with the same message as in the OP. These are stories where I would leverage AI throughout the writing process. It's my voice, my story, my characters, my work. I'm really proud of the results. I've done a great deal of writing, and even more reading. I know this is good work. Probably 50% of the text is actually written by the AI, but it's connecting the language, concepts, ideas, etc that I provide. And I am editing, tuning, and rewriting every line.

Writing with AI isn't "30 seconds". It takes me 4+ hours to write a 3,000 word story I'm happy with, and with AI it drops to 1-2. It's a massive accelerator, and the process is far more fun for me, which makes me write more often.

I understand the reasons (copyright of AI work is undetermined, and therefore a risk), but the community is missing out. AI writing assists are incredible and only getting better. They are being built into all author's standard tools ... it's going to be very difficult to find authors willing to write without them.

I write mostly for myself, but I wanted to share with the community as I know I would appreciate it if others did the same. Unfortunately, my stories are apparently not welcome, but I think they should be.

Happy to share my stories if anyone would like to see them. I'd even be willing to share work-in-progress shots of me writing with AI, so people can see what I mean. I think many of you would be shocked.

It's because of people like you that we are having this problem in the first place.

 

[GMicXXX]

I understand why my submissions were rejected. I submitted the two works together, and didn't know about the AI rules before-hand. I accept the ruling, as my work clearly doesn't follow the rules as stated. I read the content guidelines, but didn't click through to the AI policy, and I should have. I regret wasting the moderators time.

My argument is that ... I think the community is missing out on some good work that people would probably enjoy. Work that's generated with AI assistance. My argument was mostly that the rules should be changed, as I agree in my case they have been enforced correctly.

For those whose work is being rejected due to false positives, you have my sympathy. I hate seeing people's efforts going to waste. This problem is going to get harder and harder - It's going to become almost impossible to create an AI-detector that avoids false positives (we may already be there). And, AI assistance is going to get more and more common - it's an invaluable tool, and it makes writing more fun.

 

[NehaGin]

There are a few free "was this written by an AI" sites, try to run a few paragraphs through them and see what you get.

 

[carlsnap12]

When I got my rejection, I just asked my editor to fix it for me. He did, problem solved.

Just out of curiosity, what did he "fix"? Do editors have the guidelines on what the AI detectors are specifically looking for? There seems to be different interpretations of what "AI generated" means. I am afraid that an editor getting their hands on my story no longer truly makes it mine if they are rewriting parts to avoid AI detection even if they weren't AI assisted in the first place.

Its super frustrating to have your hard work questioned and be forced into a certain writing style on a website that is supposed to promote amateur writing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There are a few free "was this written by an AI" sites, try to run a few paragraphs through them and see what you get.

These sites are not reliable. There's no guarantee that passing one of those sites will make a story pass here, or vice versa.

 

[NehaGin]

These sites are not reliable. There's no guarantee that passing one of those sites will make a story pass here, or vice versa.

I am pretty much sure that the texts are put through one of these before Lauren reads them just to cut down the time.

But what I ment here wasn't to get around the refection, but use this as a tool to understand why it happened in the first place.

 

[AmonKo]

I am just waiting for some bold troll to resubmit some literotica story from 2008 and get AI rejection

LOL

 

[onehitwanda]

My opinion: using an AI to generate even part of a story is akin to printing a Rembrandt on cheap newspaper and putting it in an expensive frame. Some people may not care, but I do.

 

[AmonKo]

My opinion: using an AI to generate even part of a story is akin to printing a Rembrandt on cheap newspaper and putting it in an expensive frame. Some people may not care, but I do.

And that's your opinion.

In my opinion, Rembrandt himself learned how to paint by constantly copying other people's styles and techniques, either by studying them, watching, practicing, etc. so Rembrandt art is a colage of everything he learned in his life. This is what creating something really is: mixing and matching things you learned from other people during your life. In terms of writing, it is vocabulary, styles, quotes, paraboles—you name it. You have an idea: make it happen; how you will achieve it is not my problem; if I enjoy your work, I am happy.

If you have an editor who will correct your text and its formulations, this living person does exactly the same as the AI. What nonsense.

 

[onehitwanda]

If you have an editor who will correct your text and its formulations, this living person does exactly the same as the AI. What nonsense.

The living editor is a thinking, feeling human who can experience an emotional response to the work and go "actually, have you thought about this instead" or even, in extremis, "This is horrible. Go take a break."

The AI? Not so much. The AI is a prioiri constrained by the boundaries of its system - boundaries that it cannot extend without human intervention. The AI will not say "what happens if you move this entire scene elsewhere, and change this characters reaction from this to this - do you see how it sets out an entirely different chain of possible outcomes?"

This is what creating something really is: mixing and matching things you learned from other people during your life.

In some cases, granted. In other cases, however, humans possess a serendipitous ability to channel non-linear, non-computable processes in a way that our predecessors would ascribe to magic or divine intervention. You are welcome to your belief that this can be reduced to some mechanical process that can be replicated through a sufficiently-complex network of machines. I tend not to agree with this view.

 

[StillStunned]

If you have an editor who will correct your text and its formulations, this living person does exactly the same as the AI. What nonsense.

Not really. An editor is willingly and knowingly contributing their expertise. AI uses the expertise of thousands of unwilling, unknowing sources.

And no, that's not the same as "but Rembrandt learned from studying artists who came before". Rembrandt, like every single human, filtered what he learned through his own perceptions before turning it into creative output. AI selectively regurgitates other people's work.

 

[onehitwanda]

Rembrandt, like every single human, filtered what he learned through his own perceptions before turning it into creative output. AI selectively regurgitates other people's work.

You put this more eloquently than I could have.

 

[Plathfan]

And that's your opinion.

In my opinion, Rembrandt himself learned how to paint by constantly copying other people's styles and techniques, either by studying them, watching, practicing, etc. so Rembrandt art is a colage of everything he learned in his life. This is what creating something really is: mixing and matching things you learned from other people during your life. In terms of writing, it is vocabulary, styles, quotes, paraboles—you name it. You have an idea: make it happen; how you will achieve it is not my problem; if I enjoy your work, I am happy.

If you have an editor who will correct your text and its formulations, this living person does exactly the same as the AI. What nonsense.

I used to hold a somewhat romantic notion about those with limited ability to express themselves yet still eager to share their stories. In my naive perception, LLM was a magical tool that could help them articulate their thoughts.

That was until they shared excerpts from those "creations," which always turned out to be utter garbage. So, no thanks. If you can't form a complete sentence on your own, don't even try.

AI selectively regurgitates other people's work.

This definition is somewhat narrow. It may have been true two years ago, but the most advanced versions now have real learning abilities. They can even write in your style if they've had enough exposure to your work.

I'm not saying they're creative, but I wouldn't describe mixing fragments of phrases from billions of sources as ruminant.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

AI uses the expertise of thousands of unwilling, unknowing sources.

This is my main beef with it.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

And that's your opinion.

In my opinion, Rembrandt himself learned how to paint by constantly copying other people's styles and techniques, either by studying them, watching, practicing, etc. so Rembrandt art is a colage of everything he learned in his life. This is what creating something really is: mixing and matching things you learned from other people during your life. In terms of writing, it is vocabulary, styles, quotes, paraboles—you name it. You have an idea: make it happen; how you will achieve it is not my problem; if I enjoy your work, I am happy.

If you have an editor who will correct your text and its formulations, this living person does exactly the same as the AI. What nonsense.

So all art is derivative? If human beings were incapable of creating something new and original, I wonder how all the early art was created. Maybe the early, proto-art to call it so, is of alien origin, who knows.

On a more serious note, we all get influenced by the art, by the styles and techniques of those who came before. Some of it we do consciously, and some influence seeps into our art unconsciously. But each of us also adds something new and unique into our creations, something that's ours and ours alone, something that comes from our life experiences and from our genetic predispositions as well.
AI doesn't add anything new. It's only old art spewed out as a new mix, often badly. There is no creation. That is the fundamental difference.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This definition is somewhat narrow. It may have been true two years ago, but the most advanced versions now have real learning copying abilities. They can even write in your style if they've had enough exposure to your work.

I'm not saying they're creative, but I wouldn't describe mixing fragments of phrases from billions of sources as ruminant.

I just fixed that for you. It's a machine, it's not "learning" as humans learn; at best it's running a prediction based on prior repetition that's stored in dataset. So far (and I'm not silly enough to predict its capability in five or ten years), AI isn't original - it requires external creativity to even function .

 

[Bramblethorn]

And that's your opinion.

In my opinion, Rembrandt himself learned how to paint by constantly copying other people's styles and techniques, either by studying them, watching, practicing, etc. so Rembrandt art is a colage of everything he learned in his life. This is what creating something really is: mixing and matching things you learned from other people during your life.

Yes and no.

Artists certainly learn things from other artists and incorporate them in their own work, but there are some major differences between that process and generative "AI" tools.

The first is that artists also innovate. If you take a robot powered by StableDiffusion, train it on cave paintings of aurochs, and give it the appropriate pigments, it will churn out more cave paintings of aurochs. If you give it a bucket of sequins and a pot of Vantablack, it will ignore them and continue to churn out aurochs, because that's what it's trained on.

OTOH, if you take a bunch of human artists and show them nothing but cave paintings of aurochs...they will churn out aurochs for a while, and then they'll get itchy to put their own stamp on things. They'll start trialling new techniques, tackling the big questions like "what if aurochs shaped like woman and have big tits", and if you give them a few thousand years they'll invent things like perspective, Cubism, non-representational art. If you pick a famous artist and look at their work over time, you'll see they often start out imitating others, but then break out to start establishing their own voice.

The second is that both the copying and the innovation are intentional, conscious processes - or at least in good art they are. I'll recycle my favourite Roger Ebert quote:

"The director...has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why."

When I was a kid in English class, I mimicked the style of authors I knew because I thought that was what writing looked like. As an adult with aspirations to competence, when I see another author doing something neat, I stop to think about what they're doing, why they're doing it, how it works with the other elements of their story, and whether that's something that would be useful for one of mine - and then I might rip it off.

GPT, on the other hand, has learned from human authors that human authors sometimes do this and that and the other thing, but it hasn't learned why.

If you have an editor who will correct your text and its formulations, this living person does exactly the same as the AI. What nonsense.

I've edited stories for other authors, and no, it is not the same as what the "AI" does.

I wrote a whole How-To discussing an example of the process, but in brief: it begins and ends with an understanding of what the author is trying to achieve, and that's not something GenAI can do.

GenAI can help you make your story look more like other stories it's seen. That might be good, when it's correcting an unintentional spelling mistake or poor grammar; it might be bad, when it's copying cliches and stripping out the things that made it distinctive in a good way. And it has no capacity to explain why you should make that particular change; if you ask for an explanation, it will put together something that sounds like an explanation, but it won't have anything to do with how it actually came to that suggestion.