Replies from trolls who are passive aggressive.

[Andreas_Kreuz]

AN AUTHOR SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZED FOR A WELL-WRITTEN STORY.

Sorry, to be blunt again: The two examples given were not well written in my opinion. They read like AI gobbledigook. Flat, linear, overexplained. Now you can criticize me for not being polite.

 

[SimonDoom]

Now, with AI, I risk having my work rejected even though it's my original plot arcs and beats. So I think maybe I should just delete everything I've ever written and call it a night because no matter what I try to create, I'll always be rated as 'AI slop' or 'mediocre'. Can't win.

Are you saying that you come up with the plot arcs and beats but use AI to flesh out the story from there? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like you are saying. I think you should clarify this so everyone knows exactly what your point is and can respond appropriately.

I might be reading that sentence wrong. But if I'm not, and you ARE using AI, then I support the site in using filters to prevent AI-generated stories from being published. If you want to use AI to write stories, you should publish elsewhere. I think the goal of eliminating AI stories is important enough that it is worth the heartache of having stories rejected as a result of false positives. And I say that as an author who has had a story falsely rejected at first for AI reasons (it was an error on the site's part and the story eventually was published).

 

[Lolita30]

Are you saying that you come up with the plot arcs and beats but use AI to flesh out the story from there? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like you are saying. I think you should clarify this so everyone knows exactly what your point is and can respond appropriately.

I might be reading that sentence wrong. But if I'm not, and you ARE using AI, then I support the site in using filters to prevent AI-generated stories from being published. If you want to use AI to write stories, you should publish elsewhere. I think the goal of eliminating AI stories is important enough that it is worth the heartache of having stories rejected as a result of false positives. And I say that as an author who has had a story falsely rejected at first for AI reasons (it was an error on the site's part and the story eventually was published).

I thought AI was supposed to help writers flesh out their thoughts and stories to make them better. If they are so bad, then why are AI platforms sprouting out as we speak? I don't use AI to generate stories because they miss the mark on what i want to create. I am very capable of making up shit as I go along and spelling/grammar checking later. If that means that I'm not a writer, then whatever. I have nothing to prove to anyone.

 

[Lolita30]

Potentially being rejected. They were called out on that and didn't clarify whether they in fact were ever rejected.

I don't know who you are, but your self-important attitude is why I don't visit these forums. You seem like you know better than everyone else.

 

[Lolita30]

I hesitate to be suspicious or accusatory, but this is a very careful and specific way to write that sentence.

It's your original plot arc and story beat... Is it your original writing? Or did you direct and guide a tool that was doing the writing?

My work will always be mine regardless. I don't feel that I have to justify myself to make anyone comfortable. My opinions are valid, and nothing anyone says here will change that.

 

[Lolita30]

Not sure I understand your reasoning. You have stories here on Lit, but because possibly, at some point in the future, you *might* get a rejection, you want to delete them all?

No... what I'm saying is that any work I have presented thus far, AI-free, was rejected. To defend my work to the creator of this site that everyone is kissing up to is for naught. I don't care if I'm banned at this point, but I won't be bullied by anyone who doesn't like what I have to say.

 

[Lolita30]

I read 2 of your stories and unfortunately your natural style seems to resemble how AI writes. Yor sentences are very regular, pacing is even and sequential. There are very few clumsy or fragmented sentences. Then there is an abundance of triplets. Look at the ending of

AI is known for loving repetitive three-beat structures. This quote has 3 triplets in 2 sentences.
Then the love of em-dashes. You share it with AI.
Then your descriptions include all senses, but are unspecific.
Another aspect is that your stories have very little subtext. Nothing is hinted at, nothing is hidden. It is all explained.
So yes, I can understand that you are mistaken for AI. That is sad. But it might also be a push to evolve your writing style.

A push from whom? Unless Literotica is my agent, I can disregard that advice, but thank you all the same.

 

[Lolita30]

Before you do that you need to understand that literotica's CMS/database is over 27 years old and they are using archaic tools.

Any story that is written well can get rejected by the automated tools, while crap stories are approved left and right. I have never seen so many illiterate authors post so much crap in my life. (knows v nose, boulder v bolder, dose v does etc ad nauseam)

 

[SimonDoom]

No... what I'm saying is that any work I have presented thus far, AI-free, was rejected. To defend my work to the creator of this site that everyone is kissing up to is for naught. I don't care if I'm banned at this point, but I won't be bullied by anyone who doesn't like what I have to say.

Nobody is bullying you. Disagreement is not bullying. People, myself included, understandably wanted you to clarify whether you are using AI to create your stories, because your original post was ambiguous.

The site is perfectly free to have a policy of forbidding AI-generated stories, and authors who want to use AI to create stories are free to go elsewhere.

 

[Lolita30]

Nobody is bullying you. Disagreement is not bullying. People, myself included, understandably wanted you to clarify whether you are using AI to create your stories, because your original post was ambiguous.

The site is perfectly free to have a policy of forbidding AI-generated stories, and authors who want to use AI to create stories are free to go elsewhere.

And gaslighting as well.

 

[Lolita30]

And to expand on your other thoughts about clarifying or explaining, I have no problem explaining what I mean, but by the same token, I would trust that people would have enough common sense to know where I am coming from without me holding their hand and explaining every single thing in simplistic, elementary English so that they'd understand. Chances are that they are too obtuse to understand and are dead set in misunderstanding anything.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I thought AI was supposed to help writers flesh out their thoughts and stories to make them better. If they are so bad, then why are AI platforms sprouting out as we speak?

Class, this is a learning opportunity. When people tell you who they are, you should listen.

 

[Lolita30]

Class, this is a learning opportunity. When people tell you who they are, you should listen.

Why bother replying at all if you are using microaggressions to assuage your ego?

 

[onehitwanda]

If they are so bad, then why are AI platforms sprouting out as we speak?

Because people are lazy and craftsmanship is dying.

 

[Lolita30]

Because people are lazy and craftsmanship is dying.

Well, take it up to the higher-ups then.

 

[Erozetta]

The giant link in your signature links to your Reddit account, which shows extensive recent activity (about 16% of your post history on an account 2 years old) in r/writingwithAI and r/ChatGPTcomplaints Both subs show you discussing using AI in your writing process and/or appreciating the posts from others showing how to do so.


Hide your Reddit history if you don't want people to be able to see your interactions with using AI in writing.

Although, you did a fine job of admitting as much in this thread as well.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Why bother replying at all if you are using microaggressions to assuage your ego?

My ego does not need soothing. I was right to be skeptical.

I understand the appeal of "using AI as a tool.". That's how it was sold to you. Billions are being poured into that marketing scheme, but when you get an LLM to help you it does that by stealing from the rest of us.

Your rejections were valid, and the work you wanted to submit has no place here. At least, not until you write it yourself.

 

[Lolita30]

And who the hell are you besides someone whose opinion nobody asked for?

 

[Lolita30]

My ego does not need soothing. I was right to be skeptical.

I understand the appeal of "using AI as a tool.". That's how it was sold to you. Billions are being poured into that marketing scheme, but when you get an LLM to help you it does that by stealing from the rest of us.

Your rejections were valid, and the work you wanted to submit has no place here. At least, not until you write it your

 

[StillStunned]

And to expand on your other thoughts about clarifying or explaining, I have no problem explaining what I mean, but by the same token, I would trust that people would have enough common sense to know where I am coming from without me holding their hand and explaining every single thing in simplistic, elementary English so that they'd understand. Chances are that they are too obtuse to understand and are dead set in misunderstanding anything.

If multiple people ask you to explain what your post means, you should consider that the problem doesn't lie with them, but rather with your post.

And most of the requests were to give you the benefit of the doubt: the implication in your post was that you used AI for your stories, but people were giving you a chance to deny it.

 

[AwkwardMD]

And who the hell are you besides someone whose opinion nobody asked for?

You asked for opinions by making this thread.

 

[Lolita30]

Well, if there are LLMs who supposedly can do a better job, that just goes to show that they value shit writing, whether it's AI or not. Perhaps that's the only place where they feel superior to other people.

 

[AwkwardMD]

 

[PennyThompson]

My work will always be mine regardless. I don't feel that I have to justify myself to make anyone comfortable. My opinions are valid, and nothing anyone says here will change that.

Thanks for... Well, not clarifying, exactly, because you still haven't actually stated whether you use AI to write, or how. Which is strange to be honest, if you are convinced that there's nothing wrong with AI-genetated text, why be cagey about it?

But I think the lines are colored in well enough

There are platforms where you can share AI-generated content, this just isn't one of them. I hope you find the right community for your interests!

 

[onehitwanda]

You're not better than me and never will be. Why not preface this site as not welcome to people who aren't White and privileged as well while you're at it?

You really aren't doing yourself any favours here.