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

[MetaBob]

Interesting - thanks for pointing me to that tool, here is a link to the results:

Chat GPt AI Detector Test Scan Results

I am going to play around with this thing and see if I can find what accounts for the 8% mixed reading. I wonder if a specific narrative pattern or turn of phrase I repeated in the sample text could be to blame?

For those that don't like to click links, see below:

View attachment 2593154


Edit: I reviewed the detailed results: The text that was highlighted as potential AI content consisted mostly of praragraphs I wrote with long, compound sentences. One phrase was flagged as being commonly-used by AI: "help but wonder".

I'm glad the resource shed some light, and hope it's enough to get your story through whatever AI detector this site uses.

Even though some here have pooh-poohed suggestions to use freely available resources like this as being irrelevant because they think the site doesn't use them, this AI detector and every other AI detector are going to find similar things to flag in source text. So why not use them to help diagnose the problem? It's like advising someone to not use a human editor who isn't the same one with the authority to approve or reject a story.

I suggest using that free online tool to get your score up even higher than 96-97%. Not to rewrite anything, just as a diagnostic to guide you to instances it flags, which other detectors might also flag, which is exactly how I use the free online version of Grammarly: it sometimes finds misspellings, missing punctuation (it likes commas a LOT more than I do), and doubled words. I ignore 90-95% of what it suggests and NEVER let it rewrite anything, just treat it as another diagnostic in the toolkit I use. Glad to provide some transparency rather than more of the 'because I said so' that others here have contributed so dismissively, and once again, good luck.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Even though some here have pooh-poohed

"Some"

suggestions to use freely available resources like this as being irrelevant because they think the site doesn't use them.

This is a bit like saying "Guys my Mohs scale test kit is free, just step inside the copyright infringement palace" when the site is measuring for tensile strength.

 

[MetaBob]

I'm glad the resource shed some light, and hope it's enough to get your story through whatever AI detector this site uses.

Even though some here have pooh-poohed suggestions to use freely available resources like this as being irrelevant because they think the site doesn't use them, this AI detector and every other AI detector are going to find similar things to flag in source text. So why not use them to help diagnose the problem? It's like advising someone to not use a human editor who isn't the same one with the authority to approve or reject a story.

I suggest using that free online tool to get your score up even higher than 96-97%. Not to rewrite anything, just as a diagnostic to guide you to instances it flags, which other detectors might also flag, which is exactly how I use the free online version of Grammarly: it sometimes finds misspellings, missing punctuation (it likes commas a LOT more than I do), and doubled words. I ignore 90-95% of what it suggests and NEVER let it rewrite anything, just treat it as another diagnostic in the toolkit I use. Glad to provide some transparency rather than more of the "because I said so" that others here have contributed so dismissively, and once again, good luck.

Speaking of that, a quick look at some of the phrases that site flagged as potential AI, I already mentioned that I try to minimize use of commas and think you have an unnecessary comma in this sentence:
"The thought of him watching her, seeing her obey, even though it exposed all of her to him, made her pulse race."
->
"The thought of him watching her, seeing her obey even though it exposed all of her to him, made her pulse race."

Another thing I try to minimize in my writing is unnecessary adverbs:
"The weight of Steve's gaze felt like a physical touch, and she trembled slightly."
->
"The weight of Steve's gaze felt like a physical touch, and she trembled."

Whether these changes will help your "AI Detector" score is unknown unless you actually try incorporating them, of course, but it's part and parcel of my suggestion to focus on instances that the tool flags as possibly problematic.

 

[MetaBob]

"Some"

This is a bit like saying "Guys my Mohs scale test kit is free, just step inside the copyright infringement palace" when the site is measuring for tensile strength.

Or not.

 

[SmilingLez]

After seeing the many comments from people who say their story has been rejected for the AI reason, it makes me wonder if that was the band aid that was put on the glitchy CMS to keep stories from remaining in pending purgatory. (If story remains In database for more than 3 weeks Then reject using AI script) Just my thought

 

[metropolinational]

One phrase was flagged as being commonly-used by AI: "help but wonder".

I can't help but wonder how the anti-AI fetishists can continue to defend this nonsense.

 

[xannatharr]

I'm glad the resource shed some light, and hope it's enough to get your story through whatever AI detector this site uses.

Even though some here have pooh-poohed suggestions to use freely available resources like this as being irrelevant because they think the site doesn't use them, this AI detector and every other AI detector are going to find similar things to flag in source text. So why not use them to help diagnose the problem? It's like advising someone to not use a human editor who isn't the same one with the authority to approve or reject a story.

I suggest using that free online tool to get your score up even higher than 96-97%. Not to rewrite anything, just as a diagnostic to guide you to instances it flags, which other detectors might also flag, which is exactly how I use the free online version of Grammarly: it sometimes finds misspellings, missing punctuation (it likes commas a LOT more than I do), and doubled words. I ignore 90-95% of what it suggests and NEVER let it rewrite anything, just treat it as another diagnostic in the toolkit I use. Glad to provide some transparency rather than more of the 'because I said so' that others here have contributed so dismissively, and once again, good luck.

Thanks again for the link, and for the excellent suggestions!

Xann

 

[xannatharr]

Speaking of that, a quick look at some of the phrases that site flagged as potential AI, I already mentioned that I try to minimize use of commas and think you have an unnecessary comma in this sentence:
"The thought of him watching her, seeing her obey, even though it exposed all of her to him, made her pulse race."
->
"The thought of him watching her, seeing her obey even though it exposed all of her to him, made her pulse race."

Another thing I try to minimize in my writing is unnecessary adverbs:
"The weight of Steve's gaze felt like a physical touch, and she trembled slightly."
->
"The weight of Steve's gaze felt like a physical touch, and she trembled."

Whether these changes will help your "AI Detector" score is unknown unless you actually try incorporating them, of course, but it's part and parcel of my suggestion to focus on instances that the tool flags as possibly problematic.

Good stuff, I will play with those things and a few others and see, if, it makes difference in the score

Xann

 

[MillieDynamite]

My two cents' worth on the AI rejections on this site.

First, the methodology the site uses, or anyone's insistence that they haven't used AI, isn't at all important. @AwkwardMD believes she's cracked the code, but this isn't important to anyone either, since she doesn't share what Lit is looking for. I don't blame her for that. When you get a rejection, moaning and groaning about it doesn't change a thing. Reworking the writing is the only thing that will make a difference, and you aren't assured of success then either.

However, you can rework and resubmit the work, or you can refuse to do so. It's no flesh off my back if you do or don't.

And an endless debate about how unfair the situation is, the prostrations that you're a good writer, the bickering over how this AI checker or that detector works, doesn't change the facts. This thread is 16 pages long, and there have been 383 posts before mine. And no solution has been presented about how to get the story posted. Other than the obvious one, rewrite it. Go on, now, make some changes to the text and try again to post it or don't.

 

[AwkwardMD]

My two cents' worth on the AI rejections on this site.

First, the methodology the site uses, or anyone's insistence that they haven't used AI, isn't at all important. @AwkwardMD believes she's cracked the code, but this isn't important to anyone either, since she doesn't share what Lit is looking for. I don't blame her for that. When you get a rejection, moaning and groaning about it doesn't change a thing. Reworking the writing is the only thing that will make a difference, and you aren't assured of success then either.

However, you can rework and resubmit the work, or you can refuse to do so. It's no flesh off my back if you do or don't.

And an endless debate about how unfair the situation is, the prostrations that you're a good writer, the bickering over how this AI checker or that detector works, doesn't change the facts. This thread is 16 pages long, and there have been 383 posts before mine. And no solution has been presented about how to get the story posted. Other than the obvious one, rewrite it. Go on, now, make some changes to the text and try again to post it or don't.

Thank you. I usually try to redirect these threads with my "write it yourself" spiel, because that's really all you can do that might amount to something. I don't always succeed, and sometimes I get pulled into arguments about this or that, but it really is the only way forward that amounts to anything. The only way to be proactive.

 

[metropolinational]

Actually, the best advice I have seen here is from @MetaBob with GPTzero. Looking through the link @xannatharr posted, it's clear that the software was able to narrow the problem down to a few sentences. I am very eager to see what @xannatharr posts next regarding the outcome of his resubmission. If it works, I think we will have a practical solution, no?

I have refused to do a whole rewrite - it feels both pointless and a surrender to idiocy.

But even I would not be too proud to change 3 or 4 sentences. If @xannatharr gets through, I will probably try the GPTzero route myself.

 

[xannatharr]

I will report back!

 

[MetaBob]

I will report back!

In the interest of science, please post what changes you made to your source text and how GPTZero evaluated the edited text. Once you submit the edit to this site, ideally including some explanatory text in the Note to Admin field stating that like your first chapter, you didn't use AI except in a diagnostic capacity, it'll probably take a few days for a verdict to come back, and of course I'm interested in what happens, perhaps among others here.

Thanks and good luck.

 

[Britva415]

it makes me wonder if that was the band aid that was put on the glitchy CMS to keep stories from remaining in pending purgatory. (If story remains In database for more than 3 weeks Then reject using AI script) Just my thought

Did "permanently pending" stop happening?

 

[SmilingLez]

Did "permanently pending" stop happening?

I ended up deleting my story so I can't answer that question. But there are other people whose works are still in pending purgatory and have been there for months