LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Why is everything labeled as AI now????? I can't even post a story anymore.

AwkwardMD said:
Respectfully, while this is how it works out in the larger tech landscape, it is not how it works here.
Click to expand...
It is EXACTLY how this site's AI detector works. Its is EXACTLY how this site's AI detector MUST work. Because it's how AI works; AI detectors are themselves AI.
 
MetaBob said:
It is EXACTLY how this site's AI detector works. Its is EXACTLY how this site's AI detector MUST work. Because it's how AI works; AI detectors are themselves AI.
Click to expand...
It is not.

My understanding of Lit's ability to spot AI writing comes from privileged information. I had a starting point and I reverse engineered. You can either trust me or not, because we're not having an argument about it.
 
AwkwardMD said:
And they lose their comments, favorites, and views. They might never be able to upload the thing that was already here, and at that point they're more likely to quit altogether. It’s advice that might work some of the time, but at a high cost and with risk.

It’s bad advice.

Better advice is to encourage them to start over before they reach a boiling point.
Click to expand...
Boy, aren't you the shining beacon of optimism.

No one, as far as I know, has stated that any possible solution is the panacea that will eliminate AI rejections for everyone in every case. Some of us are pulling our heads out of the sand (or designated bodily orifice) and proposing ideas that may or may not work. When they do achieve success, others deserve to know about them.

Removing part of a story from the site and replacing it would impact the things you mentioned, but in exchange, they might be able to get better comments, favorites, ratings, and views when readers are able to read their completed story in its entirety.

How is starting over with these things less frustrating than starting the rejected piece over without any clue what actually triggered the rejection? Based upon the comments that I have seen over the months from writers who have experienced these rejections, that advice of yours is what would be most unwelcome by them. Especially since, as far as I can see, you have not shown any signs of it being more successful than any other approach.

Your opinion is appreciated. Your disrespect of others' opinions isn't.
 
My purpose in sharing that it is not AI, as it currently exists, is to dispell the idea that it is random, or no better than random. If it was run by an LLM as @MetaBob suggests, more veterans would get rejections. If it also had a whitelist, Kasumi_Lee's spanish language translation would have gone through.
 
AwkwardMD said:
It is not.

My understanding of Lit's ability to spot AI writing comes from privileged information. I had a starting point and I reverse engineered. You can either trust me or not, because we're not having an argument about it.
Click to expand...
Ah, the "secret knowledge" shutdown. Very helpful.

Here is a thought experiment for you, and for all. Go to this site: https://gptzero.me/ . This is an AI detector provided by ChatGPT. It is itself an application of AI. Input some text (limited to 10K characters) from one of your stories and hit the "SCAN" button. See the result.

I used the source human-written (by me) text I used in my post yesterday. The result:
We are highly confident this text is entirely human
Click to expand...

Then I input the text I had instructed my AI-enhanced word processing program (Apple Pages) to "rewrite". The result:
We are highly confident this text human written and polished with AI
Click to expand...

The AI detector operated precisely as designed, with verifiable result exactly matching what I had modeled. And like any true theory, it included a provision for testing, with replicable results. You should try it sometime, just as (a claimed) 380K educators have, with (a claimed) 99% accuracy. It'll be fun.
 
Last edited:
BobbyBrandt said:
Boy, aren't you the shining beacon of optimism.

No one, as far as I know, has stated that any possible solution is the panacea that will eliminate AI rejections for everyone in every case. Some of us are pulling our heads out of the sand (or designated bodily orifice) and proposing ideas that may or may not work. When they do achieve success, others deserve to know about them.

Removing part of a story from the site and replacing it would impact the things you mentioned, but in exchange, they might be able to get better comments, favorites, ratings, and views when readers are able to read their completed story in its entirety.

How is starting over with these things less frustrating than starting the rejected piece over without any clue what actually triggered the rejection? Based upon the comments that I have seen over the months from writers who have experienced these rejections, that advice of yours is what would be most unwelcome by them. Especially since, as far as I can see, you have not shown any signs of it being more successful than any other approach.

Your opinion is appreciated. Your disrespect of others' opinions isn't.
Click to expand...
I have spent much longer grappling with the implications than you have. You got one datapoint, a person who got back to you with success, and you've been plastering it everywhere like look at me look at me I'm smart too.

You don't know who you're helping. You don’t understand. When you give your one piece of advice, you aren’t explaining the risks to the people you are trying to help. it is more likely to backfire though you have no idea why that would be.

I didn’t reverse evgineer it because I'm smart. I got there because I was lucky. I don't share anything because I'm careful, because I've tried to imagine what helping the wrong people will mean for the rest of is.

But go on. Play with matches.
 
MetaBob said:
Ah, the "secret knowledge" shutdown. Very helpful.

Here is a thought experiment for you, and for all. Go to this site: https://gptzero.me/ . This is an AI detector provided by ChatGPT. It is itself an application of AI. Input some text (limited to 10K characters) from one of your stories and hit the "SCAN" button. See the result.

I used the source human-written (by me) text I used in my post yesterday. The result:


Then I input the text I had instructed my AI-enhanced word processing program (Apple Pages) to "rewrite". The result:


The AI detector operated precisely as designed, with verifiable result exactly matching what I had modeled. And like any true theory, it included a provision for testing. You should try it sometime.
Click to expand...
We are not having an argument.
 
AwkwardMD said:
My purpose in sharing that it is not AI, as it currently exists, is to dispell the idea that it is random, or no better than random. If it was run by an LLM as @MetaBob suggests, more veterans would get rejections. If it also had a whitelist, Kasumi_Lee's spanish language translation would have gone through.
Click to expand...
What, you now claim to know that, if Laurel used a whitelist, you'd know who would be in it?

A whitelist still makes a lot of sense. If there weren't one, there wouldn't be so many claims of submissions being accepted within a couple of hours. It might not be a whitelist for AI-content; it might be one that covers the rest of Lit's policies.

And on top of that, one case doesn't prove much.
 
AwkwardlySet said:
What, you now claim to know that, if Laurel used a whitelist, you'd know who would be in it?

A whitelist still makes a lot of sense. If there weren't one, there wouldn't be so many claims of submissions being accepted within a couple of hours. It might not be a whitelist for AI-content; it might be one that covers the rest of Lit's policies.

And on top of that, one case doesn't prove much.
Click to expand...
Fair. All of my Theory comes from a small dataset.
 
AwkwardlySet said:
What, you now claim to know that, if Laurel used a whitelist, you'd know who would be in it?

A whitelist still makes a lot of sense. If there weren't one, there wouldn't be so many claims of submissions being accepted within a couple of hours. It might not be a whitelist for AI-content; it might be one that covers the rest of Lit's policies.

And on top of that, one case doesn't prove much.
Click to expand...
I am absolutely willing to believe that this site uses some kind of whitelist for authors whose work has been evaluated by the site editors and by readers for quality and integrity. Many of us have noticed a result of something like this when reputable authors with good track records report seeing their stories approved more quickly than first-timers for whom patience is advised, though I doubt that a comprehensive review of such results has been conducted, except perhaps by the site editor(s), who will not have made it publicly available. This has been happening for far longer than AI was an issue, much less AI detectors. It makes sense that some kind of "whitelist" tool is one among many in an expanding toolset designed to detect things that might result in a story rejection based on factors like bad grammar, too many typos, nonsensical content, plagiarism, content violations (such as underage) without time-consuming human editorial review. No automated solution, or scripted suite of automated solutions that might include a whitelist and a visually attractive dashboard presenting results, can fully replace a thorough human editorial review, but it can help pare the number of stories that require more detailed review. That balance of human/automated review will continued to be adjusted as new threats to story integrity emerge, and that's a good and necessary thing.
 
Last edited:
AwkwardMD said:
You got one datapoint, a person who got back to you with success
Click to expand...
... which from all appearances is one data point more than you have. And, it's not the only advice I have provided, not that you would know or care.

"I reversed engineered", "I have connections", "I know more than anyone else", "Everyone else is wrong"

Have I missed any of your hyperbole?

Everything that I have seen you post is anecdotal at best. But, go on playing the know it all if that is your joy in life.
 
TheStefanSinadinovicLore said:
1. What concrete textual signals is Literotica likely using to flag submissions as AI (sentence uniformity, vocabulary density, paragraph rhythm, editing polish, etc.)?
2. Are human-edited drafts more likely to be flagged than rougher first-pass writing?
3. Does repeated resubmission of rejected stories increase scrutiny or probability of future flags?
4. Is there any known difference in treatment between long-time accounts and newer ones once an AI flag appears?
5. Most importantly: what practical changes have actually worked for writers who were previously flagged and are now posting successfully again?
Click to expand...
1. Nobody here knows

2. I believe that it doesn't have to do with that at all - except to the extent that what you're calling "human editing" actually involves a human doing the editing with the use of automated tools which are AI under the hood and which autonomously alter the text of the piece, as opposed to the human typing in the changes theirself.

3. It sure doesn't appear that way. But again, all we know is what authors have reported here, and we don't hear from all of them. But the ones we have heard from variously say that they either keep being rejected no matter what, or that they get approved and published by asking for a human-read pass because the AI flag was a false positive. It is very clear that that works at least sometimes, and it also appears clear that at least some people for whom this doesn't work are not playing by the rules. (OR an author admits to having fixed AI content so that it was no longer present in the resubmitted story.)

4. Unclear, to me anyway. But my impression is No. People who can overcome a false positive include both veterans and newcomers. People who can't overcome a false positive also appear to come from both groups, though veterans seem more willing to concede that their process (workflow, tools usage) needed to be brought into alignment with the rules.

5. See above. The only "practical changes" I perceive evidence for has to do with (re-)submitting something which never had any whiff of contact with any automated tool.

But again, we don't hear from everybody and I personally don't see every message an affected author posts on the subject either.

But it might not be possible to get the answers you're looking for, except to the extent that anecdote is a level of evidence you're willing to consider.
 
Last edited:
I'm just a newbie with zero credibility/history, but why not let the readers call out/bomb the obvious bs stories?

The crap writers will get discouraged when their work is panned. Let the public cull the trash. If it reads like yahoo click bait, let the bombs drop.

If a story is good, and stands on its own, does it matter if a program corrected your punctuation?

I've read some garbage on here that needed serious help, but who are we kidding? We are writing smut for the benefit of people that enjoy reading smut. None of this will ever make it to the book club recommended reading list.

I'm looking for smut with a plot. There are only so many ways to describe the horizontal mambo. Give me an story arc with flesh, bones, and a reason to care. A well thought out twist is always a bonus.

Or have I completely missed the intent, and elitist gate keeping is the desired outcome?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PublicNudityLover
Story rejected for AI: Now what?
3 4 5
Replies
102
Views
2K
StillStunned
StillStunned
metropolinational
Story rejected for AI?
2
Replies
30
Views
333
metropolinational
metropolinational
S
AI or LLM
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
1K
Dodola
Dodola
jsmiam
Specific instructions on how to disable AI on your device, should you choose to do it.
Replies
9
Views
258
Britva415
Britva415
OddLove
A (Most Likely Wrong) Theory About False AI Rejections
Replies
11
Views
289
BobbyBrandt
BobbyBrandt
Back
Top