From pending purgatory to AI hell

[AwkwardMD]

Yup. But don't think I want to find out. I've felt like one of the blessed ones, anywhere, outside of my own adopted kinfolk.

Then the world is poorer.

 

[Actingup]

I write my stories in word, do not let anyone or anything touch my documents and still get flagged. I tried commenting and providing a word doc outlining the writing progress, averaging around 400 words per writing session on a span of about six weeks in which the story was written, to no avail.

I'm basically about to give up publishing on here. It's apparent that lits detection does not work properly for German texts. Fortunately we Germans do have some alternatives.

Just out of curosity, are there any Geman compound words that decribe the feeling of being unfairly caught by an AI detection process?

 

[AwkwardMD]

I would mention that I'm a high-functioning Autistic and how AI detectors have a higher false-positive rate with things written by those on the Spectrum, but I already got lambasted once for daring to speak that truth in AH, so I won't do it again.

This line here got under my skin.

I have done a lot of theorycrafting on my own about how Literotica works behind the scenes, as a way to explain quirks I've noticed. If my first answer to any particular question flatters me (ie, "Maybe Laurel likes me?") I keep looking until I find a theory that doesn’t.

Whitelisting doesn’t flatter me. I just have a track record of submissions over time. Maybe it's 10 stories in a row without a rejection, and with no reports that later result in rejections. I've done that, and if that's true it maybe also explains X, Y, and Z that I've also seen and can't explain.

You and I are not likely to see eye to eye on this. You want (or are willing to accept) a solution that feeds your desire to feel special whereas I inherently reject those as ridiculous.

I'll just leave a pre-emptive "Okay" here.

 

[crookedletter]

Just out of curosity, are there any Geman compound words that decribe the feeling of being unfairly caught by an AI detection process?

Claudegelogen!

 

[IWroteThis]

I actually had not realized I wasn't still talking to the OP, which explains some of the inconsistencies I was struggling to follow. My apologies for this. Today has been a day.

Thank you for admitting that. I do appreciate it.

I can appreciate how, from your perspective, this is true. I can appreciate how my unwillingness to provide evidence for understanding Lit's AI Detector is frustrating, confusing, and at times conflicting. It is a difficult thing to talk about without explaining how it works, as doing so runs the risk of exposing the inner workings of a black box to bad actors. I try all the same.

That being said, I do not enjoy having this entire conversation from scratch with every person who comes with a chip on their shoulder and a bachelors in computer science, or a green belt in six sigma. I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I am trying to fill a gap, as I see it, and your mileage may vary on how effective I (or any one non-Literotica admin) can be.

Then stop. Since, as you said, you are unwilling to provide evidence, you ARE just arguing for the sake of arguing. You cannot fill a gap with nothing. So, again, just stop.

You don't pull a rejected story back to pending. That's not how that works. Rejected stories return to Draft status. Conflating the Pending bug with AI rejections only makes this conversation much harder to have.

Yet, you provide no evidence that I'm conflating two completely unrelated issues. Sure, there is a lot of conjecture involved, but since people who claim to have knowledge conveniently refuse to share it, conjecture based on available evidence is all we have.

This isn't how it works. It might be how it works out in the larger world of AI detection, but Lit's home grown system does not care how spicy your neuro is. It's looking for something very specific.

Unless that something very specific is metadata that says, "Generated by fill-in-the-blank AI," it doesn't matter. Just the fact that false positives are possible completely defeats your argument.

This line here got under my skin.

Why? Everything in that paragraph is factual information. Do you have a problem with the truth or with people on the Spectrum (or both)?

You and I are not likely to see eye to eye on this. You want (or are willing to accept) a solution that feeds your desire to feel special whereas I inherently reject those as ridiculous.

I'll just leave a pre-emptive "Okay" here.

I have no clue why you think this has anything to do with me feeling special, other than your clear bias towards those on the Spectrum, but your complete lack of logic has been quite apparent throughout this thread.

 

[Britva415]

Just out of curosity, are there any Geman compound words that decribe the feeling of being unfairly caught by an AI detection process?

Maybe one of these

ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENSPEEPERS!
DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKEN.
IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.

 

[Britva415]

you provide no evidence that I'm conflating two completely unrelated issues

You are, though.

AI rejections get... well, rejected. They go back to your Drafts folder.

That IS a completely unrelated issue to the "Permanently Pending" stories you pull back from Pending status. The fact that it's stuck in pending doesn't have any reliable, consistent relationship with suspicion of AI usage. Once in a while someone does say that after months of pending, their story finally gets rejected for AI, but that is far from the only outcome after months of pending. Some don't get rejected. Some do, for other reasons. Most get pulled back, resubmitted, and approved and published promptly.

Maybe you didn't mean to conflate those two things? But they are two things.

 

[Actingup]

Maybe one of these

I don't think you're taking this very seriously.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It should've read this way. "Yup. But don't think I want to find out. I've never felt like one of the blessed ones, anywhere, outside of my own adopted kinfolk."

Then the world is poorer.

And now it does. No, I've never wanted to be anything more to the world than an anonymous writer.

 

[IWroteThis]

You are, though.

AI rejections get... well, rejected. They go back to your Drafts folder.

That IS a completely unrelated issue to the "Permanently Pending" stories you pull back from Pending status. The fact that it's stuck in pending doesn't have any reliable, consistent relationship with suspicion of AI usage. Once in a while someone does say that after months of pending, their story finally gets rejected for AI, but that is far from the only outcome after months of pending. Some don't get rejected. Some do, for other reasons. Most get pulled back, resubmitted, and approved and published promptly.

Maybe you didn't mean to conflate those two things? But they are two things.

If I was talking about stories that had been outright rejected rather than queued up for human review, you might have a point. However, since I wasn't, you don't.

You even admitted that stories left in Pending long enough have been reviewed in regards to AI generation, which supports my supposition, not yours. As you said, most just don't stay in that queue long enough to be reviewed, as they tend to be recycled until they score low enough to be posted straight away.

 

[AwkwardMD]

If I was talking about stories that had been outright rejected rather than queued up for human review, you might have a point. However, since I wasn't, you don't.

You even admitted that stories left in Pending long enough have been reviewed in regards to AI generation, which supports my supposition, not yours. As you said, most just don't stay in that queue long enough to be reviewed, as they tend to be recycled until they score low enough to be posted straight away.

Initial rejections never trigger a manual review. If they get flagged, they just get rejected and sent back to Draft status.

Submit a story with a 16 year old hanging around the plot. It'll get rejected. Then, you resubmit with a note that says "no underage characters are involved in anything sexual" because manual review only, if ever, happens on re-submissions. As long as it passes muster, it'll get approved.

This is how its always been. AI rejections are not different or special. It's just another kind of unacceptable among dozens of kinds of unacceptable.

 

[IWroteThis]

Initial rejections never trigger a manual review. If they get flagged, they just get rejected and sent back to Draft status.

Submit a story with a 16 year old hanging around the plot. It'll get rejected. Then, you resubmit with a note that says "no underage characters are involved in anything sexual" because manual review only, if ever, happens on re-submissions. As long as it passes muster, it'll get approved.

This is how its always been. AI rejections are not different or special. It's just another kind of unacceptable among dozens of kinds of unacceptable.

Once again, you can't come at me straight, so you create a strawman argument.

As I said in my previous reply, just stop.

 

[AwkwardMD]

If I was talking about stories that had been outright rejected rather than queued up for human review, you might have a point. However, since I wasn't, you don't.

Do you not know how text works? We can just see what you said.

 

[IWroteThis]

Do you not know how text works? We can just see what you said.

Sure, but apparently you can't understand it.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Okay

 

[MetaBob]

Do a simple search for "A non AI software tool that detects AI writing" and this is what you get.
View attachment 2582475
Followed by many AI software packages to detect AI.

A problem when someone introduces the subject of AI is that people who don't necessarily understand the technologies underlying "AI" chime in with misinformation. I see that this has come from multiple people in this thread, and in others.

As someone who is rather familiar with the technologies included in what is commonly understood as "AI", I can say that the result of the query you submitted contains misinformation. Which is not surprising considering that the search engine you used likely incorporated AI. For instance, when it states that:

non-AI, deterministic software methods such as statistical analysis, linguistic modeling, and machine learning trained on existing data

It should be understood that "Machine Learning trained on existing data" is a manifestation of AI and has been for decades, so that phrase basically contradicts itself:

Machine learning (ML) is a field of study in artificial intelligence concerned with the development and study of statistical algorithms that can learn from data and generalize to unseen data, and thus perform tasks without explicit instructions.[1] Within a subdiscipline of machine learning, advances in the field of deep learning have allowed neural networks, a class of statistical algorithms, to surpass many previous machine learning approaches in performance.

The reality is that "AI" is basically everywhere now. A year from now it'll be even more pervasive, and more so again every year into the future, including in AI detectors. "AI" is also a slippery term, whose definitions have changed over time, with the provenance of any given solution that calls itself "AI" or "non-AI" being squishy. I have seen semantic nets and n-grams described as both "AI" and "non-AI" in my own work, for example.

I will not discuss how Lit's AI detector works. Your only choices are to trust me when I say that I side with Lit, or not. Either is fine, but I push back on misinformation.

Optical character recognition technology for computers dates back to 1974.

While "General" (or "omni-font") OCR dates back to Ray Kurzweil's 1974 scanner, it was available for select fonts earlier than that. Some make the case that it dates back as far as 1914. You can expect continued pushback against misinformation of your own. Note also that some OCR has incorporated AI for 30+ years.

"AI" is a concept that also predates the 1974 Kurzweil scanner, with the first workshop dedicated to implementing AI (as well as coining the term) dating back to 1956 at Dartmouth. Particular technologies characterized as "Artificial Intelligence" in the past do not necessarily equate to how we understand AI today, which are basically neural network-based "machine learning" or (in one vertical application) Large Language Models. "AI" is a slippery term.

Note that Ray Kurzweil used AI in much of his significant work, and has written several books about it, with publication dates for those books going back 35+ years.

 

[Writer61]

As someone who is rather familiar with the technologies included in what is commonly understood as "AI", I can say that the result of the query you submitted contains misinformation.

Given your familiarity with the subject, what do you recommend that an author struggling with false AI claims do?

 

[AwkwardMD]

A problem when someone introduces the subject of AI is that people who don't necessarily understand the technologies underlying "AI" chime in with misinformation. I see that this has come from multiple people in this thread, and in others.

As someone who is rather familiar with the technologies included in what is commonly understood as "AI", I can say that the result of the query you submitted contains misinformation. Which is not surprising considering that the search engine you used likely incorporated AI. For instance, when it states that:


It should be understood that "Machine Learning trained on existing data" is a manifestation of AI and has been for decades, so that phrase basically contradicts itself:


The reality is that "AI" is basically everywhere now. A year from now it'll be even more pervasive, and more so again every year into the future, including in AI detectors. "AI" is also a slippery term, whose definitions have changed over time, with the provenance of any given solution that calls itself "AI" or "non-AI" being squishy. I have seen semantic nets and n-grams described as both "AI" and "non-AI" in my own work, for example.



While "General" (or "omni-font") OCR dates back to Ray Kurzweil's 1974 scanner, it was available for select fonts earlier than that. Some make the case that it dates back as far as 1914. You can expect continued pushback against misinformation of your own. Note also that some OCR has incorporated AI for 30+ years.

"AI" is a concept that also predates the 1974 Kurzweil scanner, with the first workshop dedicated to implementing AI (as well as coining the term) dating back to 1956 at Dartmouth. Particular technologies characterized as "Artificial Intelligence" in the past do not necessarily equate to how we understand AI today, which are basically neural network-based "machine learning" or (in one vertical application) Large Language Models. "AI" is a slippery term.

Note that Ray Kurzweil used AI in much of his significant work, and has written several books about it, with publication dates for those books going back 35+ years.

Okay

 

[MetaBob]

Given your familiarity with the subject, what do you recommend that an author struggling with false AI claims do?

Exactly what I recommended yesterday on a similar thread (repeating what I advised 6 weeks ago on yet another similar thread), and that other authors have done with success:

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/thoughts-on-ai-checkers.1651405/post-102520222

Okay

Noted.