Dissecting Literotica’s AI Policy

[EmilyMiller]

Maybe first one, then the other!

Could be

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think @AwkwardlySet’s view is steeped in a misconception of the process.

It's not. It's just an opinion. For the record, I never said that the mere fact of using a beta reader or editor meant having a co-author. I said that changing your work in any significant way - the story or characters, based on other people's input, does mean that for me.
As I said, it's an opinion, one most don't want to engage with meaningfully, so yeah, let's leave it at that.

And beta reading is driven by humility.

I kinda doubt that in many cases.

We all have things to learn.

The day I decide I don't, I think I'll seriously consider suicide.

We are better as a village.

Stronger for sure. Not necessarily better or smarter. Otherwise, three idiots would be smarter than any smart person, due to having a higher combined IQ.
It's the same reason why I never consider that the number of people adhering to some belief is a factor for the truthfulness of said belief. In that sense, one person can be smarter and wiser than thousands. But the qualities of each individual adhering to a belief? That's an important factor for sure.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It's not. It's just an opinion. For the record, I never said that the mere fact of using a beta reader or editor meant having a co-author. I said that changing your work in any significant way - the story or characters, based on other people's input, does mean that for me.
As I said, it's an opinion, one most don't want to engage with meaningfully, so yeah, let's leave it at that.


I kinda doubt that in many cases.


The day I decide I don't, I think I'll seriously consider suicide.


Stronger for sure. Not necessarily better or smarter. Otherwise, three idiots would be smarter than any smart person, due to having a higher combined IQ.
It's the same reason why I never consider that the number of people adhering to some belief is a factor for the truthfulness of said belief. In that sense, one person can be smarter and wiser than thousands. But the qualities of each individual adhering to a belief? Yeah, for sure.

Yeah - we’ll just agree to differ. Here one side being you and the other the rest of humanity

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Yeah - we’ll just agree to differ. Here one side being you and the other the rest of humanity

You think they'll let me have my own island?

 

[dirk2024]

And beta reading is driven by humility. We all have things to learn. We are better as a village.

I kinda doubt that in many cases.

@AwkwardlySet Have you ever used a beta reader? It is an incredibly humbling experience. You're handing your creation - your baby - to someone, asking them to critique it to find if there is anything wrong with it. And if there are issues, they point them out. Turns out that your baby has scars. Now you have to decide whether you're going to fix them or not, and if so, how to do it in a way that truly heals the scar without creating new wounds.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

@AwkwardlySet Have you ever used a beta reader?

Nope. You already know my stance on beta readers. It's a principle, not something born out of experience.

Turns out that your baby has scars.

That can only be a surprise for those who think they write pure perfection. I really, really don't think I do.

Also, a beta reader can only voice an opinion about the story, which may or may not be true. It's just one reader giving you an opinion, albeit a reader whom you trust.

Now you have to decide whether you're going to fix them or not, and if so, how to do it in a way that truly heals the scar without creating new wounds.

This is all that truly matters. Keep in mind that the beta reader's opinion could mislead you as well. But anyway, if you choose to alter your story in any significant way, based on that beta reader's input, then he becomes a partial co-author in my view.

I understand that most of you don't see things that way, and that's fine. But again, the fact that there's more of you doesn't make it less likely that I'm right. I might end up on my own small island, but that argument won't make me any less right.

 

[EmilyMiller]

But again, the fact that there's more of you doesn't make it less likely that I'm right.

 

[crookedletter]

I understand that most of you don't see things that way, and that's fine. But again, the fact that there's more of you doesn't make it less likely that I'm right. I might end up on my own small island, but that argument won't make me any less right.

What I think you're missing here -- well, one of the things you're missing here -- is there isn't any right or wrong. Beta readers work for some people. They apparently don't fit with your process. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. It's a matter of seeing value in a technique, or not, and if you don't see a value in it there's no reason for you to utilize it.

What rankles is when you use terms like "crutch" or begin to question authorial ownership, what you're doing is dismissing the tools other people are using. You're slinging dirt on them. Suggesting they somehow corrupt the process. And that's not only bullshit, it's also insulting. Just so you're aware.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Nope. You already know my stance on beta readers. It's a principle, not something born out of experience.


That can only be a surprise for those who think they write pure perfection. I really, really don't think I do.

Also, a beta reader can only voice an opinion about the story, which may or may not be true. It's just one reader giving you an opinion, albeit a reader whom you trust.


This is all that truly matters. Keep in mind that the beta reader's opinion could mislead you as well. But anyway, if you choose to alter your story in any significant way, based on that beta reader's input, then he becomes a partial co-author in my view.

I understand that most of you don't see things that way, and that's fine. But again, the fact that there's more of you doesn't make it less likely that I'm right. I might end up on my own small island, but that argument won't make me any less right.

OK, I just can’t. I’m blaming my ASD…

So, in summary, there is this thing that you admit never having done, and which you demonstrably have misconceptions about. But you think that your single, inexperienced opinion on the topic outweighs the myriad people who do have knowledge of the topic and think otherwise. And this is because… scans back over the thread… of your principles.

I don’t really see that as a massively tenable position TBH. You’re becoming the RFK of beta reading.

 

[Writer61]

Your becoming the RFK of beta reading.

Had to laugh at that.

 

[crookedletter]

RFK of beta reading

 

[Writer61]

And incredibly hypocritical that they are obviously using software to monitor and detect

Not really. They are using a tool to police their rules, not to create works.

 

[ElectricBlue]

You think they'll let me have my own island?

Tasmania might let you in. There's the Bass Strait between it and the mainland, so that'll work too.

 

[Sablesin]

This was disected by the original post. And his findings do not clearly support this statement. First the guidelines explicitly mention AI based spelling and grammar checkers as being acceptable. Then it talks about AI generating blocks of text as being a copyright issue. (But not about this being against the rules) And then there is the AI rejection, which is unclear and sometimes also hits authors who write a rather style with many generic phrases and words.



After trying AI as editor, I learned there is a significant difference. A human editor gets a feeling for the intention of the text and prioritizes accordingly. A human will point you straight to the key issues, while the AI will be generic and frequently miss the point completely. AI also completely fails to recognize subtext, subtle hints, or double-entendre.

I do use an AI as editor, but I forbid it to suggest actual wordings or changes. I am using the AI as a critic. (List the 5 paragraphs, that might be too choppy, list the 3 scenes where a transition might be helpful for the reader, extract what I said about character X)

And even this must be filtered and questioned on a case by case basis.
A human editor would do a better job, but the AI gives me an answer within seconds and I can continue.

I think there is a difference between a standard 'off the shelf' AI editor vs a trained GPT editor. I've spent a fair bit of time and effort training a GPT to understand my writing, my style, intent etc. and have constrained it to only making suggestions. Whether I take on-board those suggestions or not is still entirely my decision. This is where I don't see the difference between an AI editor vs human. The decision lies with the author.

 

[StillStunned]

I think there is a difference between a standard 'off the shelf' AI editor vs a trained GPT editor. I've spent a fair bit of time and effort training a GPT to understand my writing, my style, intent etc. and have constrained it to only making suggestions. Whether I take on-board those suggestions or not is still entirely my decision. This is where I don't see the difference between an AI editor vs human. The decision lies with the author.

If it's your writing, style, intent etc., why would you need an AI editor to make suggestions? Don't you know better than the AI what you want to write and how you want to write it?

 

[Sablesin]

Yes, but the critical friend aspect I've built into the GPT also challenges me in some of the ways I write, which in turn, I chose whether I accept and learn from, or not. I still do not see how this differs from a human editor

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Tasmania might let you in. There's the Bass Strait between it and the mainland, so that'll work too.

Meh, too close to Australia.

 

[StillStunned]

Yes, but the critical friend aspect I've built into the GPT also challenges me in some of the ways I write, which in turn, I chose whether I accept and learn from, or not. I still do not see how this differs from a human editor

A human editor contributes to a human-written story, which is what the site wants. You might disagree, but it's not your decision to make, it's the site's.

Also, a human editor doesn't carry the same ethical and legal concerns as an AI.

My recommendation? Do your own editing. Take your time, read your story over and over again as you write and after the draft is complete. Try to read it as if it was a published novel by your favourite author, in your favourite genre. Does it read as you'd expect it to? Does it sound off, or shallow, or hasty or awkward at any point? Change it, read it again and see whether it's fixed.

It might take more time, but unless you're obsessed with churning out stories as fast as possible, what's the rush? You'll end up with a much better product than anything you could get with AI assistance, or even with a human editor going over it once. And the next story will be faster and easier, and the one after that even easier.

 

[Sablesin]

I just think it's a shame that typical human reaction to demonize technology immediately comes into play, until it becomes the norm and then we all wonder what the fuss was about. But, you're absolutely right. It is the sites discretion and I can either take it or leave it.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Yes, but the critical friend aspect I've built into the GPT also challenges me in some of the ways I write, which in turn, I chose whether I accept and learn from, or not.

(bold/italics mine)

ChatGPT is not your friend. You did not tame it, and you did not teach it anything. ChatGPT 5 was trained using 75% of the internet; you just can't, as just one person, be meaningfully additive to that.

LLMs are the worst kind of echo chamber, because they ask up front what you want them to tell you, and they'll do that regardless of whether it's true or not.

I look forward to true AI. LLMs ain't it, chief.

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

I have used AI for editing using specific configurations (gpts or gems) like @Sablesin. But I grow more and more dissatisfied with them.
Another weakness is that the statistical mushing of AI often misses pivotal sentences. I have a story about a 39 year old scientist who goes to a party and states that she intends to live out her girly side. And she does it wearing kitty socks, acting like a brat, pinkish makeup etc. The AI failed to acknowledge this statement and complained thar a 39 yo scientist should not act girly-ish. A human editor would have been aware of it.

Another almost funny example was in the same story: on the drive home the woman first plays with her wet pussy and then holds hands with her partner who notices the wetness. AI argued that this was not logical, in a dark car one would not be able to notice wet fingers. My answer was: "GFY, I am a human, I know how wet feels. And you don't."

 

[ElectricBlue]

Meh, too close to Australia.

Haha. Tasmania is a state of Australia, doofus, not a state of mind.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Haha. Tasmania is a state of Australia, doofus, not a state of mind.

Ha, not for long!

 

[EmilyMiller]

If it's your writing, style, intent etc., why would you need an AI editor to make suggestions? Don't you know better than the AI what you want to write and how you want to write it?

No point arguing with a true believer…

 

[EmilyMiller]

I just think it's a shame that typical human reaction to demonize technology immediately comes into play, until it becomes the norm and then we all wonder what the fuss was about.

There are many tech savvy people here. What you say here is totally untrue. It’s a complete straw-man argument.