Story incorrectly rejected due to AI

[joy_of_cooking]

Does anyone know how to find an editor that would help with this?

I would be surprised if such an editor exists. AI detection is AI too, and AI comprehensibility is an open research question.

 

[grenefire]

I would be surprised if such an editor exists. AI detection is AI too, and AI comprehensibility is an open research question.

I'm sorry. I am not sure what you mean.

 

[CalebZhass]

When I come here to read stories, I don't want to have to sift through 200 frauds just to find someone with genuine talent. That's where we are right now.

In the meantime, I'm going to spend my afternoon playing some games on Chess.com. What I won't be doing is having Stockfish open on another tab so I can dumpster everyone with maximum efficiency.

I guess that is highly subjective. Are you reading stories to experience what someone thinks? In that case, it is a reasonable thought process, however most are in it for entertainment. People usually read stories to experience the sensation that the story can invoke. To identify with the characters, feel what they feel, to escape from their reality into a fantasy world. They might admire the writer for providing them with great experiences, but from a consumer perspective, it does not matter if your product was made by a machine or a craftsman, it is the quality that matters. (Unfortunately?), soon that quality will be indistinguishable.

You pretty much sounded like a Luddite in that post btw and in many ways, the hysteria around AI resembles the troubles the industrial revolution forced humanity to face. People are once again realizing, that their lives are upturned by a new technology. That previously important professions are made obsolete or insignificant. People are afraid, because they do not know what the future will be and the unknown is scary, but some are also afraid because the new technology threatens their identity (author) or existence (someone living from publishing/making art)

Please don't take this the wrong way. I am not trying to criticize you, just want to help understand, that the change you are fighting against has already happened. It is not a question of how you prevent it, but rather a question of how you learn to live with it. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better they will be off, and the higher the chances that they come out on top when the dust settles.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

In the meantime, I'm going to spend my afternoon playing some games on Chess.com. What I won't be doing is having Stockfish open on another tab so I can dumpster everyone with maximum efficiency.

I would be curious to know if you ever use Stockfish to get alternate ideas on how to deal with specific situations when practicing? You play chess online. You practice...
Same concept.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm sorry. I am not sure what you mean.

I believe she means that no editor can tell you which parts of your story will get flagged by the AI detection tool and which won't. Such expertise would imply intimate knowledge of the specific AI detection tool, which isn't realistic, to say the least. In general, short, bland sentences are likelier to get flagged as AI content. AI also prefers to write in an active voice so using passive voice could help you, I suppose. Bad grammar helps too, as hilarious as that is

 

[alohadave]

Those who need to run their draft through multiple software tools, to even identify their mistakes in the first place, have an incredibly low level of skill. I repeat, they don't have the ability to even review their draft and identify what changes need to be made. If you can't do that, you're not a writer.

Having to generate a data visualisation of words you've overused, due to a low vocabulary and laziness, is embarrassing. Relying on the software to inform you of your "style score", then making wholesale changes, prompted exclusively by the AI, to increase that style score, is embarrassing. Those people can't write. They don't know what the fuck they're doing.

I'd be gutted if I discovered my favourite Literotica authors had ProWritingAid installed on their machine, and that they couldn't write a message on a birthday card without it.

Get over yourself.

 

[alohadave]

I believe she means that no editor can tell you which parts of your story will get flagged by the AI detection tool and which won't. Such expertise would imply intimate knowledge of the specific AI detection tool, which isn't realistic, to say the least. In general, short, bland sentences are likelier to get flagged as AI content. AI also prefers to write in an active voice so using passive voice could help you, I suppose. Bad grammar helps too, as hilarious as that is

Plus, Volunteer Editors have no official status here. They are offered as a resource for authors, but they have no standing for swaying Laurel about the content of a story.

Edit: a word

 

[AwkwardlySet]

In the meantime, I'm going to spend my afternoon playing some games on Chess.com. What I won't be doing is having Stockfish open on another tab so I can dumpster everyone with maximum efficiency.

As a former chess player and someone who follows the chess world actively, I can tell you that while you might not be using Stockfish, that doesn't mean that plenty of other people aren't. The problem with cheating in online chess is rampant. Chess.com is trying to heavily downplay it for the obvious reason but the problem is plain to everyone who follows chess. Why is it so? Because it's human nature to cheat to get results, and in this case, it is so damn easy as well.
I'll try to present some data and then correlate it to Literotica so this doesn't derail the topic.

Many prominent chess players have voiced their criticism about cheating in online chess. Arguably the best player of all time - Magnus Carlsen, former world champion Vladimir Kramnik, top American and top Russian players such as Fabiano Caruana, Levon Aronian, Ian Nepomniachtchi and Daniil Dubov, and so on. Chess.com downplays that criticism. Why? Because it is against their best interest and they rely on the fact that most people don't know how to use their brains properly and assess the facts critically. Even in their heavy downplaying, they say that no more than 2% of players in online chess cheat. Then, a Chess.com employee boasts with statistics, saying how they closed over fifty thousand accounts in one month only due to the breach of fair play policy. For someone who doesn't think critically, fifty thousand accounts per month seems like a lot, and it creates an impression of a company that truly takes fair play policy seriously. But let's look at the data.

Chess.com has over 150 million active accounts. Sheesh. If 2% of that number are players who cheat, that means that over three million players cheat in online chess. With this "impressive" pace of fifty thousand accounts per month, it would take five full years for Chess.com to ban only the cheaters who are cheating right now. Of course, new players and accounts appear every day, and anyone who is banned can open a new account under a different e-mail. It is as simple as that. From this simple fact, you can tell that the boasting about their state of the art anti-cheating algorithms and firm fair play policy is pure and utter bullshit. And all of this EVEN if we accept their claim that it is only 2% of players cheating. The truth is much more grim, I am afraid. But is there even a solution to this problem?

The problem here is that going much harder against cheating would be against their interest. If they started closing, say, five hundred thousand accounts per month instead of fifty, that would noticeably impact their income, since many of the cheaters have paying accounts. More than that, to be able to process so many requests and accounts, they would need significantly more manpower, which again means much less profit for them. So instead of doing all that, they focus on promoting chess and downplaying the problem, and since they practically hold a monopoly over online chess, many of the prominent players are trying not to stir the waters to avoid getting on their bad side. Many among those players live off chess.

How does this correlate to Literotica? I am sure that most of these authors whose work got flagged as AI-generated are innocent. But not all. I believe Laurel knows this as well, and she decided to take a firm stance, opting to frustrate a good number of honest authors in order not to let slip a certain number of frauds. The question is, can the situation improve? It can, but it won't, and here is why. The problem with AI-based rejection is in a way the same kind of problem that plagues other aspects of Literotica that do not work properly. It is a problem of manpower, in its essence.
While I believe that there are many who would do volunteer work for Lit, Laurel obviously wouldn't want to give access to the story side of Lit (where all problems lie) to just anybody. I assume she would do it only under a legally binding contract. But that likely implies paying those administrators. (also training them but I believe that isn't really a problem. I won't go into the whys here. This post is too long as it is)
So, for things to get noticeably better on all fronts, Lit needs, say, ten more trained administrators to deal with story admissions, technical issues, story reports, AI rejection, and so on. Well, it seems that Laurel isn't ready to give that money away, so she opts for doing it alone (presumably) and creating massive frustration, but again, since Lit has no true competition, it is unlikely that that frustration would lead to any significant loss for Literotica.

Of course, it could also be that Laurel is just a huge control freak who doesn't trust anyone, legal contract or not, but I leave it to you to decide which one is more likely.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I am hardly the worst when it comes to that

 

[nice90sguy]

Someone wrote that we should just learn to write in a way that does not look like the AI

I'm one of those someones, and you're missing the context in my case: Don't write like AI if you want to avoid getting your story rejected here . DO write like AI if you want to improve your resume, use good grammar, or any of the othe things that AI-assistants are great for.

Personally I don't think writing style matters that much, I'm looking for certain qualities when I read or write, which current AI tools can't create very well yet -- verisimilitude, surprises, insights, connection with the characters.

I'd love it if an AI could create those sort of stories: I'd read them -- I wouldn't really mind who or what wrote them, just as I don't pay much attention to the gender or political views of an author if I like their stories.

 

[DDX84]

I guess that is highly subjective. Are you reading stories to experience what someone thinks? In that case, it is a reasonable thought process, however most are in it for entertainment. People usually read stories to experience the sensation that the story can invoke. To identify with the characters, feel what they feel, to escape from their reality into a fantasy world. They might admire the writer for providing them with great experiences, but from a consumer perspective, it does not matter if your product was made by a machine or a craftsman, it is the quality that matters. (Unfortunately?), soon that quality will be indistinguishable.

You pretty much sounded like a Luddite in that post btw and in many ways, the hysteria around AI resembles the troubles the industrial revolution forced humanity to face. People are once again realizing, that their lives are upturned by a new technology. That previously important professions are made obsolete or insignificant. People are afraid, because they do not know what the future will be and the unknown is scary, but some are also afraid because the new technology threatens their identity (author) or existence (someone living from publishing/making art)

Please don't take this the wrong way. I am not trying to criticize you, just want to help understand, that the change you are fighting against has already happened. It is not a question of how you prevent it, but rather a question of how you learn to live with it. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better they will be off, and the higher the chances that they come out on top when the dust settles.

It's fine, I completely respect your opinion and agree with a lot of what you've argued. Especially as it relates to wider industry.

But your views are in opposition to the website's rules, which now ask for content to be written for humans, by humans, with no contribution from AI or related software tools. I'm in favour of those rules, despite Literotica's failures to implement them.

I don't mind the Luddite talk, it's just this isn't an issue about the adoption of the technology itself. It's about the technology being outlawed by the platform, which is a position shared by every major publisher, no matter how difficult they find it to enforce. Your argument struggles because you treat the creative arts in the same way as the magnificent AI breakthroughs in wider industry. You speculated about the consumer perspective when you've given insufficient consideration to the publisher's perspective, let alone that of the author.

Demonstrably, there's a group of forum users who believe the new rules should be scrapped and that AI should be as welcome here as putting milk and sugar in your tea. While I don't agree, I think it's a perfectly acceptable position and some have made their case quite well.

Get over yourself.

Dave, I like you, but you've been waging a war on standards for an awfully long time. Next, you'll be arguing that we should bring in the Bowser Shell catch-up mechanic, and be damned with everyone that invested the time to get better at their craft. I understand the modern fascination people have of being able to catch up to their more talented peers just by pressing a few buttons, but honing a craft doesn't work like that.

One thing Laurel could do is bring in a new genre, one where everyone that can't string two sentences together without ProWritingAid can do their best Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson impressions. Caleb might be right and the consumer won't care, it might end up being more popular than Loving Wives.

The best writers don't need Bowser Shells. They have to make do with coins and bananas.

 

[onehitwanda]

As a former chess player and someone who follows the chess world actively, I can tell you that while you might not be using Stockfish, that doesn't mean that plenty of other people aren't. The problem with cheating in online chess is rampant. Chess.com is trying to heavily downplay it for the obvious reason but the problem is plain to everyone who follows chess. Why is it so? Because it's human nature to cheat to get results, and in this case, it is so damn easy as well.
I'll try to present some data and then correlate it to Literotica so this doesn't derail the topic.

Many prominent chess players have voiced their criticism about cheating in online chess. Arguably the best player of all time - Magnus Carlsen, former world champion Vladimir Kramnik, top American and top Russian players such as Fabiano Caruana, Levon Aronian, Ian Nepomniachtchi and Daniil Dubov, and so on. Chess.com downplays that criticism. Why? Because it is against their best interest and they rely on the fact that most people don't know how to use their brains properly and assess the facts critically. Even in their heavy downplaying, they say that no more than 2% of players in online chess cheat. Then, a Chess.com employee boasts with statistics, saying how they closed over fifty thousand accounts in one month only due to the breach of fair play policy. For someone who doesn't think critically, fifty thousand accounts per month seems like a lot, and it creates an impression of a company that truly takes fair play policy seriously. But let's look at the data.

Chess.com has over 150 million active accounts. Sheesh. If 2% of that number are players who cheat, that means that over three million players cheat in online chess. With this "impressive" pace of fifty thousand accounts per month, it would take five full years for Chess.com to ban only the cheaters who are cheating right now. Of course, new players and accounts appear every day, and anyone who is banned can open a new account under a different e-mail. It is as simple as that. From this simple fact, you can tell that the boasting about their state of the art anti-cheating algorithms and firm fair play policy is pure and utter bullshit. And all of this EVEN if we accept their claim that it is only 2% of players cheating. The truth is much more grim, I am afraid. But is there even a solution to this problem?

The problem here is that going much harder against cheating would be against their interest. If they started closing, say, five hundred thousand accounts per month instead of fifty, that would noticeably impact their income, since many of the cheaters have paying accounts. More than that, to be able to process so many requests and accounts, they would need significantly more manpower, which again means much less profit for them. So instead of doing all that, they focus on promoting chess and downplaying the problem, and since they practically hold a monopoly over online chess, many of the prominent players are trying not to stir the waters to avoid getting on their bad side. Many among those players live off chess.

How does this correlate to Literotica? I am sure that most of these authors whose work got flagged as AI-generated are innocent. But not all. I believe Laurel knows this as well, and she decided to take a firm stance, opting to frustrate a good number of honest authors in order not to let slip a certain number of frauds. The question is, can the situation improve? It can, but it won't, and here is why. The problem with AI-based rejection is in a way the same kind of problem that plagues other aspects of Literotica that do not work properly. It is a problem of manpower, in its essence.
While I believe that there are many who would do volunteer work for Lit, Laurel obviously wouldn't want to give access to the story side of Lit (where all problems lie) to just anybody. I assume she would do it only under a legally binding contract. But that likely implies paying those administrators. (also training them but I believe that isn't really a problem. I won't go into the whys here. This post is too long as it is)
So, for things to get noticeably better on all fronts, Lit needs, say, ten more trained administrators to deal with story admissions, technical issues, story reports, AI rejection, and so on. Well, it seems that Laurel isn't ready to give that money away, so she opts for doing it alone (presumably) and creating massive frustration, but again, since Lit has no true competition, it is unlikely that that frustration would lead to any significant loss for Literotica.

Of course, it could also be that Laurel is just a huge control freak who doesn't trust anyone, legal contract or not, but I leave it to you to decide which one is more likely.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I am hardly the worst when it comes to that

It's not in the mousetrap manufacturer's interests to kill all mice.

 

[alohadave]

but you've been waging a war on standards for an awfully long time.

What are you talking about? I advocate for writers to use tools that help them write better.

You however have made it abundantly clear that you are a Luddite purist who won't be happy until everyone has to struggle to create.

You repeatedly comment about how 'bad' writers are looking for cheats and shortcuts. It's a bullshit argument because you are just gatekeeping.

My focus is on results, not the purity of the process. If a tool allows more writers to achieve their vision, that is a good thing. People like you claim that any time a new tool is created that it sullies the good name of writing.

Writing is a means to an end, and that end is telling stories. If you want to sit in a cabin and write with a quill on vellum using only your own big brain with no outside assistance then do it. But you have no moral authority to tell anyone else that their methods and tools are wrong.

 

[CalebZhass]

I'm one of those someones, and you're missing the context in my case: Don't write like AI if you want to avoid getting your story rejected here . DO write like AI if you want to improve your resume, use good grammar, or any of the othe things that AI-assistants are great for.

I got your point, just didn't agree with it, but that's fine. As for the rules, I hope they manage to eventually sort it out, as currently it appears to be quite the sore point for many authors, some of whom seem to be well established on the site already.

A short term fix could be creating a whitelist for long time authors, giving them a carte blanche of sorts on the basis of their prior contributions? (well, apart from the regular checking for other parts of the story content, that was done prior to AI)

That could help staunch the bleeding while a more permanent suture can be made. Just to throw in a wild idea I am sure came up already about a dozen times since this thing was first started

It's fine, I completely respect your opinion and agree with a lot of what you've argued. Especially as it relates to wider industry.

appreciate it. Still, I know that me beating the dead horse in one topic after the other might seem obnoxious, for which I apologize. It just happens to be a topic I am actually professionally somewhat involved in, am passionate about and fascinates me on many levels.

But your views are in opposition to the website's rules, which now ask for content to be written for humans, by humans, with no contribution from AI or related software tools. I'm in favour of those rules, despite Literotica's failures to implement them.

I'm also 100% in favor of following the rules, though in my personal opinion they are there for copyright reasons mostly. Still, I respect the stance some of the oldtimers have here, understand it even.

I don't mind the Luddite talk, it's just this isn't an issue about the adoption of the technology itself. It's about the technology being outlawed by the platform, which is a position shared by every major publisher, no matter how difficult they find it to enforce.

I beg to differ. The platforms are outlawing the technology as the legal side of it is a damn minefield at the moment and that's because copyright (and patent) laws in general are by about 50-100 years behind where they should be. In short, they are an archaic mess around the whole world. Lawmakers are lagging too far behind the times and in an uncertain legal environment, the companies are protecting their own legal interests.

Plus AI is really a big danger for publishers, as who would want to buy your books, when they could just get a brand new, fresh story every week from an AI somewhere.

Your argument struggles because you treat the creative arts in the same way as the magnificent AI breakthroughs in wider industry. You speculated about the consumer perspective when you've given insufficient consideration to the publisher's perspective, let alone that of the author.

I speculated about consumer perspective, because that drives economy. I do care deeply about the people who create the wonderful stories on this site, well, some of them anyway . However I also refuse to live in a dream and ignore the reality of my world, just because I find that reality sad, and trust me. Every time I think about the future I see ahead, I just want to lay down and cry, despite being an otherwise a pretty cheerful fella.

You have no idea how much I wish to be wrong on this one.

Demonstrably, there's a group of forum users who believe the new rules should be scrapped and that AI should be as welcome here as putting milk and sugar in your tea. While I don't agree, I think it's a perfectly acceptable position and some have made their case quite well.

If there is such a group, I have not seen them yet to be frank, but then I have not been lurking on these boards for too long.

Personally I don't think we must accept AI blindly, however I also do not believe in the firm zero AI policy some follow. I believe that talking about it, trying to figure out how we can live with it is important, as we WILL HAVE TO live with it eventually and the sooner we start to figure out how, the better we are off.

 

[DDX84]

I advocate for writers to use tools that help them write better.

That's where you and I differ. When the AI writes sections of your document for you, with no human involvement beyond hitting the 'accept' dialog box, that's not an example of a human using a tool to write better. But it does succeed in bringing a bad writer's vision to life in the blink of an eye, which is why it's such an attractive option for those who want to cut corners.

Also, one quality that the best work on this platform shares is that those creations were all very difficult to achieve. Writing at that level is a struggle, sometimes an arduous one. Huge amounts of time and energy being invested to achieve something epic. That's why your position is a war on standards, which are an essential part of the creative process. So, yes, I want to appreciate great work from amazing writers who struggled to create it. Then I want to commend them after I've enjoyed reading it.

Look, if someone wants to use AI to write a terrible story on their lunch break, they can knock themselves out. I just want them to take it to an appropriate shithole like Reddit, where they can collect their 15 upvotes, instead of putting it in the publishing queue here.

I do respect your opinion, but we're never going to agree on this. And that's perfectly fine.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I would be surprised if such an editor exists. AI detection is AI too, and AI comprehensibility is an open research question.

I think what they're talking about is the part of the AI rejection boilerplate that suggests getting a Volunteer Editor to look at the story.

 

[cadeauxxx]

Yes and no.

Tools like GPT are not intended to "memorise" the specific texts they train on; what they're meant to do is learn patterns that recur in the texts they read. This graphic is from a different area of machine learning, but the basic principle that it's showing is relevant here:

My main point is that AI generates text based on the input that someone feeds to it. That has nothing to do with algorithms or all this other technical stuff that you're describing.

This is the second time you have changed the subject on me, to go off the wall about something else not related this central thing. I'm not wasting my time arguing about ChatGPT when the central point here is authors like me being false flagged and then accused of generating text with a program, when we know we're not doing it. At this point, we're just going in circles complaining about AI, rather than the main thing that brought people like me to this forum in the first place - stories rejected by an AI detection tool and false flagged.

The central point here is authors being false flagged, then we come on this forum and are just told to change our writing styles, and the goal posts constantly shift on the discussion about what AI is and our problems are ignored in the process.

And then, someone like this comes along to remind us that we are just bad writers anyway....

Those who need to run their draft through multiple software tools, to even identify their mistakes in the first place, have an incredibly low level of skill. I repeat, they don't have the ability to even review their draft and identify what changes need to be made. If you can't do that, you're not a writer.

What gives you the right to judge people based on skill? Are you a language arts professor at a university?

By your same logic, you might as well tell Indie and Punk Rock guitarists that they have "incredibly low level of skill" since they typically don't use chords beyond the 3rd fret and Pentatonic scales used in most Rock music.

This is an excellent point. Purism has a place in this discussion, but it's more relevant to discussions about a writer's talent. While I'm a huge advocate of the practical applications of AI in the workplace, healthcare and so much more, it's ludicrous to use that as justification of its inclusion in the creative arts.

When I come here to read stories, I don't want to have to sift through 200 frauds just to find someone with genuine talent. That's where we are right now.

Your registration date on this site is 2022, and yet you're talking like you have some authority on here to pass judgement down onto others all in the name of being pure. That's where we are right now. We speak up about our problems, and then have the finger pointed back at us when the goal posts shift to just telling us we suck at writing anyway. All writing is subjective to taste based on what the individual likes. It's no different than liking certain music, movies or any other form of entertainment.

 

[cadeauxxx]

I'm one of those someones, and you're missing the context in my case: Don't write like AI if you want to avoid getting your story rejected here . DO write like AI if you want to improve your resume, use good grammar, or any of the othe things that AI-assistants are great for.

Personally I don't think writing style matters that much, I'm looking for certain qualities when I read or write, which current AI tools can't create very well yet -- verisimilitude, surprises, insights, connection with the characters.

And here is the problem - AI is fed information by humans that it uses to generate it's texts. So how do we judge that someone is writing like AI? To quote another author from yesterday, it's like accusing a mathematician of using a calculator when they worked out the problem in longform. It's going to look the same since it's based on the same rules.

I don't think it's possible to truly check if someone is writing like an AI, since everyone tends to come up with their own writing style based on the words they prefer, and specific phrasing and grammar. Not everyone is the same, and I don't think we should held to some standard based on what detection tools flag us as.

I hold to my belief that for authors with a huge catalog, we are most likely victims of our work on Literotica being fed through an AI generator. After all, these programs only work based on the information you feed to it. There are several authors on here with big archives of hundreds of stories. There are thousands of writers on this site, and hundreds of thousands of stories in various sections. I think it's entirely possible that many of us have fallen victims to our work being fed into these programs, and unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about it.

A few years ago, I personally fell victim to a plagiarist copying my work from this site and putting it up on Amazon Kindle with the names changed, and selling my work for a profit. In the mid 2010s, Amazon's erotic section was flooded with cheap digital books that were all copied from this site. From that experience alone, I would not be shocked if the same thing is happening to us with AI.

Something similar (if not worse) has happened with art and AI. AI is trained based on art, so you can feed it all the art by a prominent artist, and it will begin spitting out images that look like Pablo Picasso has been resurrected.

 

[Bramblethorn]

My main point is that AI generates text based on the input that someone feeds to it. That has nothing to do with algorithms or all this other technical stuff that you're describing.

It has everything to do with algorithms, because the algorithm is how it generates text.

This is the second time you have changed the subject on me, to go off the wall about something else not related this central thing.

Actually, I was responding to what you wrote:

I 100% believe that these AI detection systems are junk, and if you ran older stories through them, they're going to come up with a high percentage rating of being AI detected.

My reason for believing this, is because AI reacts based on what information a human feeds it. It's human writing fed to them which it then uses to generate constructed sentences and phrases based on that. This is the big thing that people don't understand at all about AI. The detection tools are using the same rules to detect grammar and sentences written, which is why it's going to give a high percentage score on something being AI that's already been published.

You seemed to be asserting that older stories are likely to get flagged because they're part of the corpus used to train the AI and hence the detectors. I was responding to that assertion, discussing why (IMHO) that isn't likely to be much of an issue. Not sure how that's "changing the subject".

 

[cadeauxxx]

The problem about flagging anything is this: It will only get worse.

Someone wrote that we should just learn to write in a way that does not look like the AI. Well, it makes my heart cry out for you, who change yourselves on the account of a technology not working as intended, but there is an even worst part to your idea. It will not work. It is futile. You are corrupting yourself for nothing.

I agree here. When you start changing your own style, then the machine has won. You're changing something to please a detection tool, rather than what you feel about something as a whole.

I play guitar as my other major hobby besides writing. There are so many songs that sound similar to one another. To make an example: Here's Judas Priest with Heading Out To The Highway. Here's a song, and another song, and yet another one, and one more that sound very similar. Which one came first? Imagine running all of them through an AI detection tool based on another. They would all come back AI detected since the machines are based on input fed to them by humans.

This will inadvertently spark a movement of purism, where people will refuse the use of AI or the consumption of AI related products and will create a niche of human authors who still stick to the old ways, doing everything by hand. A noble exercise, but let's make no mistake. At the end of the day, it will be something purely based on feeling and belief, with no rational thought behind it and the only reason those works will feel novel would be because they are not exactly what YOU want. But then, by that time you will be able to ask the AI as well to come up with its own silly ideas. We as humans will become obsolete, if AI goes anywhere and from the looks of it, there is no stopping that train at the moment.

Purism and Elitism have long existed here, as they do in most communities based around a creative outlet. That's not really Literotica's fault. It's more of human nature IMO that this tends to happen in communities. You'd see this same stuff even without AI. You don't have to look far. This very thread, has armchair experts using AI as a way of criticizing others for their writing style, and you see it in the other AI threads as well.

 

[XerXesXu]

'cadeauxxx said:

My main point is that AI generates text based on the input that someone feeds to it. That has nothing to do with algorithms or all this other technical stuff that you're describing.'

Bramblethorn said:
'It has everything to do with algorithms, because the algorithm is how it generates text.'

.......................................

Algorithms are school learning. LLMs are trained by pre-school learning, a simulation of the way the human brain is thought to work, using neural networks. We know they and we learn, we don’t know how that learning is encoded.

Think of accent. Everyone (almost) starts primary school capable of two-way oral communication, you speak and understand your native language effectively. If you didn’t, it would be pointless starting school. However, everyone has a different accent, one can tell who a person is or isn’t, just by the sound of their voice.

What LLM’s acquire is a property, akin to accent, of their own and what AI detectors detect is text with a similar property. The detectors think eg: all ‘Geordies’ are AI.

 

[EmilyMiller]

We should train AI on the contents of this thread. It would spontaneously commit Seppuku. End of problem.

Em

 

[DDX84]

What gives you the right to judge people based on skill?

Every time a reader is asked to rate a story, they do so considering the quality of the work. The author's skill is a hugely important factor in that determination.

Your registration date on this site is 2022, and yet you're talking...

I no longer publish on Literotica.

When I did, a number of years ago, I achieved every target that I set for myself. I reached #1 in my favourite genre's all-time top list and every story I wrote scored well above the threshold for a hot tag. If there was a league table for highest average rating across the whole site, I'd have been very near the top. In terms of my career, I've worked hard and been rewarded for it, while I've helped a lot of writers along the way.

However, even if I hadn't achieved any of those things and this was my first day on Literotica, I'd still be entitled to come here and offer my opinion. You don't have to value my opinion, of course, but I respect yours.

The achievements I listed above don't mean as much to me these days. If they did, I would've kept the account here. I'm only sharing them with you now because you've resorted to the "what have you written, your account is empty" tripe.

And then, someone like this comes along to remind us that we are just bad writers anyway....

That depends, what did I say?

Those who need to run their draft through multiple software tools, to even identify their mistakes in the first place, have an incredibly low level of skill. I repeat, they don't have the ability to even review their draft and identify what changes need to be made. If you can't do that, you're not a writer.

Yeah, my position is unambiguous. If you've taken offence to what I said above, then it's probably because you need to use software to identify your weaknesses. Those doing so are using the software to fill a significant gap in their skill set. My view is that the gap in question is so wide, you could fly Air Force One through it. Why can't those people take the time to study their own drafts and identify their next steps?

The reason those people rely on the software is because they don't know what they're doing without it. Just as if you handed me a guitar, I wouldn't know one end of it from the other.

What's important to me is the process that we all go through as writers to learn and improve. Only I know how much hard work I've put in over the years to reach the standard I'm at now. There's a solidarity in knowing that other authors here have made similar sacrifices to produce incredible work. If I spent my time cutting corners and pretending that I was learning by hammering 'accept', I'd be wasting my time.



Look at how they're marketing that software. Think about the standard of writer who that would appeal to. I pity anyone who gets seduced by it.

 

[dmallord]

I believe she means that no editor can tell you which parts of your story will get flagged by the AI detection tool and which won't. Such expertise would imply intimate knowledge of the specific AI detection tool, which isn't realistic, to say the least. In general, short, bland sentences are likelier to get flagged as AI content. AI also prefers to write in an active voice so using passive voice could help you, I suppose. Bad grammar helps too, as hilarious as that is

No wonder my stuff gets through the filter and is posted. I suffer from both passive voice and bad grammar. [I thing My dear Grammar, bless 'er heart, was bad at that to.]

 

[nice90sguy]

It has everything to do with algorithms, because the algorithm is how it generates text.

That's the first time you've got ML slightly wrong (or misleadingly oversimplified) in any of your posts. I'm sure you know very well what ML is, but it's really so non-deterministic, so much an art rather than a method, that calling it algorithmic, i.e. a mechanical procedure, falls into the trap that so many people do (including great philosophers like Ronald Searle), that it's "just" that.

Modern AI, since backpropagation was invented by Geoffrey Hinton, is much more like the way neurons work in the brain than how a calculator works. Calculators implement the original "algorithms" -- the methods of Al-Khwārizmī -- of arithmetic.

Calling modern AI alogorthmic is as true as calling the way brains work algorithmic. After all, brains are "just" a bunch of neurons, more complex than the transistors in a computer, but basically operating by simple, deterministic rules.

What I love about AI is how much it's challenging us to think about what it means to be human.

 

[StillStunned]

We should train AI on the contents of this thread. It would spontaneously commit Seppuku. End of problem.

Em

That's the one with blocks of numbers that have to add up, isn't it? You could be right: getting AI addicted to those games would distract it from writing.