Did AI break this site?

[BillyIdolWasAVampire]

I've been trying to upload an entirely self written story in German for over a month but it keeps getting rejected bc of AI content. I even asked an AI program to check for AI and removed those parts, which is ridiculous! I am losing interest in going through the overly long process of uploading my stories.

 

[BeechLeaf]

There have been many complaints about AI rejection, but apparently the German site is particularly badly affected: see the first posting in this thread, for example.

 

[HelenL]

I don't know if it broke the site, but it surely broke AH.

 

[SmilingLez]

I've been trying to upload an entirely self written story in German for over a month but it keeps getting rejected bc of AI content. I even asked an AI program to check for AI and removed those parts, which is ridiculous! I am losing interest in going through the overly long process of uploading my stories.

Seems like Literotica bypassed the pending purgatory problem that we had for months during the fall and winter seasons by using the AI script to reject content versus keeping the database clogged resulting in a bottleneck of stories remaining pending for months

 

[RejectReality]

Non-English stories are probably suffering more because Laurel isn't fluent in all of the languages, and can't really override an AI flag based upon reading the text. Anything she's using to translate to try to filter out content restrictions is undoubtedly producing stilted translations, if the translation is not tainted with AI, as most are nowadays, so that's no real help.

It seems to be an evolving situation, because rejection of Non-English ( and particularly, German stories ) was a lot more prevalent not too long ago — at least based upon the level of complaints lodged here.

As with any AI rejection, if you are not in fact accepting suggestions from an editing/review program that may be generated by AI, all you can do is resubmit with a note saying you didn't use AI and hope for the best. Trying to change things to appease the AI checker is just throwing things at a wall and hoping it sticks. It's not worth the effort.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Non-English stories are probably suffering more because Laurel isn't fluent in all of the languages, and can't really override an AI flag based upon reading the text. Anything she's using to translate to try to filter out content restrictions is undoubtedly producing stilted translations, if the translation is not tainted with AI, as most are nowadays, so that's no real help.

Also possibly because a lot of AI tools have more training data in English than other languages, so AI detectors might be even less reliable there.

 

[millamomud]

Ich kann dich nur dazu einladen unserer Selbsthilfegruppe im deutschen Literotica, ein paar Etagen tiefer im Keller beizutreten. Dort findest du vielleicht keine Hilfe, aber gleichgesinnte und eine Portion Galgenhumor.

 

[SkyBubble]

Not yet, but it's trying.

 

[OddLove]

As for your experience, that's unfortunate... make sure you're not using any writing assistance software or German to English translation software, and you're literally writing the entire story yourself without any shortcuts or training wheel type programs.

As for the 'Did AI break this site?' question... I actually think most people claiming to be falsely rejected for AI are either 1. They're angry that their shortcuts were considered AI and they want to lash out somewhere, or 2. They genuinely didn't know that writing correction software like Grammarly and automated translation software use AI.

There's a very common lie or 'misinformation' if you will, and I see it here all the time from angry people. And it's the idea that "I was flagged for AI because I have 'too good' of grammar... maybe I should add some typos" and that's utter nonsense. I've read plenty of amazingly written stories here, old and new. So if you're trouble shooting and looking for a solution, don't fall for it. Intentionally adding misspellings and poor grammar into your story will not 'trick' whoever's approving and/or rejecting stories.

 

[PennyThompson]

It's meaningless. This will go nowhere. Stories are about ideas and imaginations. Even if writers are using AI tools, the ideas and imaginations are theirs. AI just brings these ideas and imaginations into words. AI is a reality of our time. We cannot escape it. These rejections are pointless.

If that was true, people that used AI to write their stories wouldn't try to hide and obfuscate it. It wouldn't be a big scandal every time an author was caught using AI. Publishers wouldn't recall books and cancel contracts.

But it seems that many many readers want to read human writing, and viscerally hate the idea of reading something algorithmically generated by an auto-complete machine.

Here's a proposal: Make an erotica site that only publishes stories written by AI. Not interactive AI-chats, those are a dime a dozen, just stories. See how much interaction and engagement it gets!

 

[MrPixel]

Make an erotica site that only publishes stories written by AI. Not interactive AI-chats, those are a dime a dozen, just stories. See how much interaction and engagement it gets!

They exist, sort of. I've been doing some light research looking for other publishing sites. Found a fistful of "Let AI make custom erotica for you and your lover as part of the action!" I guess they are interactive sites, but oriented toward producing stories.

 

[Unblemished]

If this “don’t try to fight the new thing, The Future Is Inevitable” bullshit was true, we’d all be living in the Metaverse.

 

[EmilyMiller]

If this “don’t try to fight the new thing, The Future Is Inevitable” bullshit was true, we’d all be living in the Metaverse.

It’s promoted by the companies that are a) losing billions of dollars, b) putting the environment under greater stress, c) rigging the financial system and the broader economy with C4 ready to explode, d) delivering products that only meet very narrow use cases, e) conning all too gullible CEOs to replace employees with vastly inferior software agents, which will expose the CEO’s organizations to reputational, regulatory, and financial risk.

But the models are getting exponentially better, surely? How? When they have read all human content (of whatever quality) and are now reduced to being trained on the output of other LLMs. Can no one see the fallacy in this?

 

[Actingup]

It’s promoted by the companies that are a) losing billions of dollars, b) putting the environment under greater stress, c) rigging the financial system and the broader economy with C4 ready to explode, d) delivering products that only meet very narrow use cases, e) conning all too gullible CEOs to replace employees with vastly inferior software agents, which will expose the CEO’s organizations to reputational, regulatory, and financial risk.

But the models are getting exponentially better, surely? How? When they have read all human content (of whatever quality) and are now reduced to being trained on the output of other LLMs. Can no one see the fallacy in this?

What she said.

On the OP's problem - it does seem a fundamental issue to me that, if you're going to have German stories (or whatever language) and there's an AI risk, then you need a German-fluent editor making the decisions, or being advised by German-fluent assistant editors on what decisions to make. I can't see any way around that.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

But it seems that many many readers want to read human writing, and viscerally hate the idea of reading something algorithmically generated by an auto-complete machine.

Is this in fact true? I have been on this site for decades, and yet have never met an author. I believe they are human, but have nothing to substantiate that claim. I don't look at author names or profiles when I select a story to read. If the story 'works' for me, I don't care how it was generated. Just me?

 

[EmilyMiller]

Is this in fact true? I have been on this site for decades, and yet have never met an author. I believe they are human, but have nothing to substantiate that claim. I don't look at author names or profiles when I select a story to read. If the story 'works' for me, I don't care how it was generated. Just me?

People have different standards for what they read. Some of the human written stuff here is not exactly Shakespeare.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Is this in fact true? I have been on this site for decades, and yet have never met an author. I believe they are human, but have nothing to substantiate that claim. I don't look at author names or profiles when I select a story to read. If the story 'works' for me, I don't care how it was generated. Just me?

Dunno about "just you", but certainly "not me".

Something that trips up a lot of people is the difference between superficial desire and underlying need. There's a story, IDK whether it's actually true, about well-meaning people who try to feed hummingbirds with NutraSweet instead of sugar water. The bird fulfils its desire for sweetness by lapping up the NutraSweet, and then it crashes because what it actually needed was calories to keep its wings flapping. When technology allows us to satisfy desire without addressing the need that desire is supposed to serve, things go bad pretty fast.

I enjoy getting comments on my stories. But if Lit were to add a bot that just posts glowing comments on people's stories all day long, that would not make me happy; it'd make me want to leave the site. Because the point of getting a comment isn't to have some nice words under my story, it's to know that what I wrote touched another human being.

Reading is the same. The words are just the sweetness, it's the underlying human connection that's the sugar. Humans are social animals (even the introverted ones like me) and almost all of us want to interact with other humans; stories are a way to interact with people we've never met. It's early days yet, but from what I can see, using AI to sate the desire for conversation without filling the underlying need for connection is likely to end up killing a lot of hummingbirds. So to speak.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It's early days yet, but from what I can see, using AI to sate the desire for conversation without filling the underlying need for connection is likely to end up killing a lot of hummingbirds. So to speak.

Listen to the hummingbird
Whose wings you cannot see
Listen to the hummingbird
Don't listen to me

Listen to the butterfly
Whose days but number three
Listen to the butterfly
Don't listen to me

Listen to the mind of God
Which doesn't need to be
Listen to the mind of God
Don't listen to me

Listen to the hummingbird
Whose wings you cannot see
Listen to the hummingbird
Don't listen to me

Songwriters: Adam Cohen / Leonard Cohen

 

[AnonymousInternetExplorer]

Perhaps this is my "old man yells at cloud moment" but anything with generative AI absolutely ruffles me.

It gets to the point I automatically judge accounts that have AI images. Don't even get me started on authors