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

[PennyThompson]

Good lord. Listen to yourselves. So, we can't use Word anymore? Just papyrus, or, if you are a real Lit purist, chisel and stone?

No, I'm saying that you need to intentionally turn off Word's Copilot functionalities and not let it write anything for you. I think Microsoft's insistence on injecting AI functionality into what used to be straightforward workflows is getting a lot of honest writers stuck.

And it's not the writer's fault, it's the tech companies who have over leveraged on AI investments and can't figure out how to turn a profit on them.

 

[AwkwardMD]

And it's not the writer's fault, it's the tech companies who have over leveraged on AI investments and can't figure out how to turn a profit on them.

This. And it deeply sucks. I'm not unsympathetic.

 

[WeShallUnclench]

Oh great, new fear unlocked.

I'm sorry to hear this happened to you. That it happens to you almost consistently seems to suggest that there is something in your writing specifically which, by no fault of your own, makes the AI detector freak out.

This really is insidious, because not only can you not really write any other way than you do, to the extend that you could try to change your writing you'd first have to know WHAT it is in your writing that seems to be the issue.

Meanwhile hundreds of other people post with no problem, just becsuse they accidentally don't tick those invisible boxes. Kafka-type situation right there.

[EDIT: To be clear, I also think AI detection is important in general, but that doesn't make it any better when you just happen to be the one glitch in the system.]

Sorry I can't say anything more constructive, I just hope this stops happening to you, and hope it won't happen to anyone else (including me).

(EDIT: Assuming of course you *are* innocent; but if not, I trust that holding up a charade this stubbornly while sympathetic people give you the benefit of the doubt would fill you with sufficient shame to evaporate you, so that's a non-concern.)

 

[onehitwanda]

I think Microsoft's insistence on injecting AI functionality into what used to be straightforward workflows is getting a lot of honest writers stuck.

It's made Teams, which was already shit, a typhoid sewer.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

No. I am not saying that, though AwkwardlySet loves to imply as much by being vague when he talks about "some people."

I'm not trying to be vague. You certainly are one of those people who think they are in a position to judge whether something is AI or not, and therefore, you maintain a gatekeeper's stance. But you're also not the only one, not by a long shot. That's why I say some people.

Penny here is a disciple for sure, but there were plenty of others who previously expressed a similar position, but now likely don't feel like repeating, or maybe they dislike the rebukes that I write in reaction, who knows. My callouts aren't very pleasant, I guess, and many people would rather treat Lit as their happy place and avoid hardasses like me.

 

[PennyThompson]

Penny here is a disciple for sure

I have come to my conclusions independently

 

[onehitwanda]

I have come to my conclusions independently

Did you submit yourself your conclusions to peer review?

 

[EmilyMiller]

All I am saying is give peace a chance…

In turning on each other (and I’ve been on the receiving end of people shooting the wrong target on this very thread) we achieve nothing.

This AI shit is a total mess. But it’s been created by billionaires who want to be trillionaires and couldn’t give a fuck about how they do it. The site didn’t create this fucked up world, neither did authors who genuinely write their own work (we have to acknowledge that people do submit AI-written slop here - as confirmed in my convos with the site before these ceased).

Maybe let’s take the rhetoric down a few notches.

Here’s a calming image:

 

[metropolinational]

No, I'm saying that you need to intentionally turn off Word's Copilot functionalities and not let it write anything for you.

I dont use copilot and barely even use word. I use an old fashioned text editor because I prefer to write by moving post it notes around on my screen. Yet I'm getting rejected by AI also. This has nothing to do with AI tools being inserted into workflows. This is about over-reliance on a notoriously faulty detection tool and a bunch of old timers with their heads stuck in the sand.

 

[metropolinational]

Here’s a calming image:

I clicked on it, expecting it to expand, and it was still thumbnail sized. Made me so much fucking angrier.

 

[crookedletter]

All I am saying is give peace a chance…

In turning on each other (and I’ve been on the receiving end of people shooting the wrong target on this very thread) we achieve nothing.

This AI shit is a total mess. But it’s been creates by billionaires who want to be trillionaires and couldn’t give a fuck about how they do it. The site didn’t create this fucked up world, neither did authors who genuinely write their own work (we have to acknowledge that people do submit AI-written slop here - as confirmed in my convos with the site before these cease).

Maybe let’s take the rhetoric down a few notches.

Here’s a calming image:

View attachment 2591710

 

[WeShallUnclench]

Write your story yourself. Edit it yourself, or with the help of a volunteer editor. This is the only way.

In the general spirit of peace, can we agree that what the AwkwardMD essentially said here is "This is the only advice I can give you"
Not
"If you do this, it WILL work, and if it doesn't work, clearly you're NOT doing this"?

Nobody is saying there are never false positives?

But simultaneously, if we agree that there NEEDS to be an anti-AI system for the stories, I'm afraid there can be no guarantees against collateral damage. Again, not much of a consolation. Only pleas to improve the system, but the way AI works, it can never be flawless. I would trust those in charge are doing all they reasonably can...?

Again, my sincere hope for all concerned that the machine will stop coming after you for no reason.

 

[metropolinational]

if we agree that there NEEDS to be an anti-AI system for the stories

Why? I write because I enjoy writing. It's a lot of fun. But apparently some people want to do so with the help of AI. So what?

Right now, AI sucks still. But it's getting better every year. Very soon, it will get so good, it will be impossible to detect AI from human writing. Then what? Will people here still be defending the "need" for AI detection? It's coming. In less than five years, the only viable criteria for AI detection will be high quality.

Just let it go. This whole thing is about as stupid as demanding that authors use mechanical type writers.

 

[EmilyMiller]

hardasses like me.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Right now, AI sucks still. But it's getting better every year.

This is AI company marketing speak. LLMs have hard limitations and we may well have already reached them.

Very soon, it will get so good, it will be impossible to detect AI from human writing.

Again this is the AI companies trying to fool people that LLMs are actually AGI as opposed to a dead end technology with very limited use cases.

It could be that people are lying in order to make even more money.

 

[crookedletter]

Why? I write because I enjoy writing. It's a lot of fun. But apparently some people want to do so with the help of AI. So what?

Right now, AI sucks still. But it's getting better every year. Very soon, it will get so good, it will be impossible to detect AI from human writing. Then what? Will people here still be defending the "need" for AI detection? It's coming. In less than five years, the only viable criteria for AI detection will be high quality.

Just let it go. This whole thing is about as stupid as demanding that authors use mechanical type writers.

It might not bother you to have sites like this flooded with AI-generated slop. It would bother me, and I know it would bother others. I don't want it as a writer, I don't want it as a reader. The site moderators agree, and I support them in that.

If we accept your premise for the sake of argument, maybe there's nothing to be done about it in the long run, and such tools will cease to work. But... it's worth a try. And hopefully those attempts continue to improve, to both increase their success rates and to limit their collateral damage.

 

[metropolinational]

Again this is the AI companies trying to fool people that LLMs are actually AGI as opposed to a dead end technology with very limited use cases.

It could be that people are lying in order to make even more money.

I used to have 30 employees five years ago. I have 20 now. The rest have been replaced with AI. I suspect it will be 15 soon. We are simply not replacing people anymore if they move or retire, we just build more AI into our systems.

My "business" may be atypical, but the progress is real. I don't listen to AI executives. Wouldn't even know where to tune into that. I just know that what I can do today with those tools is miles ahead of what I could do a year ago.

 

[metropolinational]

It might not bother you to have sites like this flooded with AI-generated slop. It would bother me, and I know it would bother others. I don't want it as a writer, I don't want it as a reader. The site moderators agree, and I support them in that.

The site is filled with slop right now. The dystopian future you fear is here. Right now.

What we need is a better rating system, not ever more draconian and ridiculous "detection" tools and authors bending over backwards to read the tea leaves. Some authors, right now, are literally trying to make their writing worse in order to get by the detection. You think that is making the site better?

Give us good rating systems and let the market decide what sucks and what doesn't.

 

[Writer61]

Good lord. Listen to yourselves. So, we can't use Word anymore? Just papyrus, or, if you are a real Lit purist, chisel and stone?

My own experience says otherwise. Seven stories this year, all written in Word, and checked with Grammarly.

How? I don't accept all of their suggestions, especially where changes in wording are made. Also, I post in RTF so that no hidden characters are included.

 

[crookedletter]

The site is filled with slop right now. The dystopian future you fear is here. Right now.

What we need is a better rating system, not ever more draconian and ridiculous "detection" tools and authors bending over backwards to read the tea leaves. Some authors, right now, are literally trying to make their writing worse in order to get by the detection. You think that is making the site better?

Give us good rating systems and let the market decide what sucks and what doesn't.

Human-made slop is unavoidable. It's a feature, not a bug: this site is open to amateurs, anyone should be allowed to post their original content here, whatever their skill level.

The false positives don't make the site better. But shielding against AI-generated content does, I believe. Those protocols obviously need some work if there are false positives. But I don't believe the answer is to take them down entirely.

 

[Writer61]

Give us good rating systems and let the market decide what sucks and what doesn't.

The rating system is fine; the problem is that readers don't use it as intended. Do you have a solution to that?

 

[EmilyMiller]

I used to have 30 employees five years ago. I have 20 now. The rest have been replaced with AI. I suspect it will be 15 soon. We are simply not replacing people anymore if they move or retire, we just build more AI into our systems.

My "business" may be atypical, but the progress is real. I don't listen to AI executives. Wouldn't even know where to tune into that. I just know that what I can do today with those tools is miles ahead of what I could do a year ago.

There are use cases. But we are talking about actual creative writing, not marketing copy.

The AI bubble is a Ponzi scheme in which chipmakers pay AI companies to buy their products, and data center fabricators do the same. If you look into the finances, only Nvidia is making money and that is because they are giving their surplus profits to the AI companies to buy more GPUs.

The crash is going to be very messy.

 

[metropolinational]

The rating system is fine; the problem is that readers don't use it as intended. Do you have a solution to that?

Of course, but it doesn't matter because the site won't implement any changes. The site should not just tell you the rating of a story, but also the rating weighted by affinity. So, for example, I might have a high affinity for your ratings and low affinity for Emily's ratings. In fact, Emily's low ratings might equal a high rating for me. That is all easily discoverable.

We would not need to change very much on the site itself. Just build some algorithms elsewhere. All you need is a spot to add one more star rating to each story, but this one weighted by YOUR preferences. It could be implemented in a couple of weeks.

 

[AwkwardMD]

In the general spirit of peace, can we agree that what the AwkwardMD essentially said here is "This is the only advice I can give you"
Not
"If you do this, it WILL work, and if it doesn't work, clearly you're NOT doing this"?

This is very generous, and I try to maintain this angle. On my best days, I manage it well. Sometimes, I lack that tact, but it is my failing when I'm being too jagged.

I used to work for UHaul. They told us in training that moving house is one of the most stressful life events, alongside death and divorce, and by far the most stressful thing you can choose for yourself. I got to see hundreds of people on some of their their worst days. Crabby and irascible, and arguing full throated about an eighth of a tank of gas (back when gas was much cheaper).
It can be difficult to remember that the other person in an argument is still a person.

Nobody is saying there are never false positives?

But simultaneously, if we agree that there NEEDS to be an anti-AI system for the stories, I'm afraid there can be no guarantees against collateral damage. Again, not much of a consolation. Only pleas to improve the system, but the way AI works, it can never be flawless. I would trust those in charge are doing all they reasonably can...?

Again, my sincere hope for all concerned that the machine will stop coming after you for no reason.

It's not a perfect system. It is, if anything, overly aggressive. Rejecting more than it needs to.

I'm not sure that can be helped. Which is unfortunate.

 

[metropolinational]

The AI bubble is a Ponzi scheme in which chipmakers pay AI companies to buy their products, and data center fabricators do the same. If you look into the finances, only Nvidia is making money and that is because they are giving their surplus profits to the AI companies to buy more GPUs.

The crash is going to be very messy.

The market is a Ponzi scheme. That has no relevance to the real world. The market crashed in 2000 too after the tech boom. But the internet has still changed the world. AI is doing the same, and the market crashing around it will make no difference.