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

[YmaOHyd]

Exactly. Hence, irrelevant.

Again, not to the specific question of whether LLMs can do this. I'm not making this a discussion about morality.

Why not? What's the rationale now?

Generative AI may be capable of producing work better than what the majority of people (not writers, just people) can do. I don't read fiction by most people; I read fiction by specific people who I think are exceptional at what they do. That paranormal romance I shared up there isn't good enough to be worth my time, AI or no. Writers should have spaces where they can develop their craft, and free sites like Lit are part of that ecosystem.

 

[crookedletter]

The debate about the "quality" of AI-generated content is missing the point. If people are interested in reading machine-simulated fiction, I'm sure there are places you can find it. Have fun. Fuck off.

I'm interested in art and fiction because it's made by humans. I'd rather read tripe written by an amateur human writer than some algorithmic output that successfully simulates competent writing.

Thankfully, though, I don't have to do either, because there are outlets -- like this one -- that still prioritize human content. And there are plenty of competent human writers out there that aren't using these shortcuts.

 

[AwkwardMD]

In other words, "because I hold the gun."
That's fine. You do. Stop pretending you have a reason then. You have the gun and that's why you win the argument.
Stop pretending this has anything to do with quality or morality or anything. It's fear and power. That's all.

My brother in Christ, the stakes here could not be lower. This is a hobby. There is no gun. Arguments between authors are ultimately meaningless, even when you "win." The only time an argument is beneficial is when someone learns something

Literotica's policy has nothing to do with morality, and the detector did not ding you for quality. That isn't how it works, regardless of what anyone else says. If hanging around here crying about it makes you feel better then by all means keep doing that. It'll get you put on more ignore lists and will contribute mightily to your martyr complex.

 

[metropolinational]

That isn't how it works, regardless of what anyone else says.

You did. You are the one who keeps implying there is something "wrong" with AI generated content.

That was the argument. I enjoy arguments as I do learn stuff. That'w what we are doing here.

Again, incredible intellectual dishonesty here to enter a game of soccer, lose, and then start explaining to everyone that soccer is stupid. Then why did you play? The rest of us were having fun.

 

[metropolinational]

I'd rather read tripe written by an amateur human writer than some algorithmic output that successfully simulates competent writing.

And that's totally fine. I said, about 3 pages back, that this debate has nothing to do with quality. I was called a liar, a cheat and a sucker for Big AI. that's all.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Again, not to the specific question of whether LLMs can do this. I'm not making this a discussion about morality.

Dogs and bees can smell fear. My neighbor has two cats living under their porch These are things that are true.

Facts are rarely useful on their own. It's the conclusions you draw from them that matters. So, what larger conclusions relevant to StefanSindanovich's numerous rejections can be drawn by getting anyone to admit that an LLM can string together a sentence?

Help me understand.

 

[metropolinational]

It'll get you put on more ignore lists

That's what always happens when you are right and the people in power are wrong. It's the way of the world.

 

[jsmiam]

I can't believe the number of people who delude themselves into calling the half assed shit that AI produces "amazing". it's only amazing until you look carefully. It's a shiny surface on a plle of poop…

Agreed. Here’s an amazingly well written article on a set of similar themes.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/18/tech-ai-bubble-burst-reverse-centaur

Including a subtlety: the best thing that ever happened for AI bros, was that graphic artists actually have experienced some real work losses. That’s tricked business owners into thinking AI can eliminate jobs in other areas. But the shallowness is easier to spot in other areas.

Personally, I’ve wavered between doom and gloom over the future of employment vs seeing a massive scam unfolding. My current opinion is both. Some ai will survive, again to a handful of titans. Some jobs will be decimated. Lots of investors in the wrong titans will lose their shirts.

 

[metropolinational]

Facts are rarely useful on their own. It's the conclusions you draw from them that matters. So, what larger conclusions relevant to StefanSindanovich's numerous rejections can be drawn by getting anyone to admit that an LLM can string together a sentence?

That your attacks against Stefan are not based on some concern about what is good for the site, but rather about fear that you can't write as well as AI can. Your sense of superiority and self worth is threatened, hence your irrationally aggressive response.

 

[metropolinational]

That’s tricked business owners into thinking AI can eliminate jobs in other areas. But the shallowness is easier to spot in other areas.

I've replaced a dozen jobs with AI in my "business". The average IQ is 100. Most people's jobs are not rocket science. You can replace X office workers with Y smarter workers plus some AI. The ratio of X to Y depends on your business.

 

[AwkwardMD]

That your attacks against Stefan are not based on some concern about what is good for the site, but rather about fear that you can't write as well as AI can. Your sense of superiority and self worth is threatened, hence your irrationally aggressive response.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Facts are rarely useful on their own.

Really? You'd better come with examples, if you're going to make a statement like that.

AI can already write better fiction than 90% of humans, maybe 95%.

That, and only that, is what I am responding to. I have no opinion on any individual person's AI rejection, because I don't know how the detector works, what they wrote or how. EB wanted an example and I provided one, from a book that is for sale as an ebook or mass-market paperback. I'm not getting drawn into any discussions about what AI means more broadly.

 

[AwkwardMD]

That, and only that, is what I am responding to. I have no opinion on any individual person's AI rejection, because I don't know how the detector works, what they wrote or how. EB wanted an example and I provided one, from a book that is for sale as an ebook or mass-market paperback. I'm not getting drawn into any discussions about what AI means more broadly.

Apologies for aggressively trying to keep some of these conversations on track. Side conversations about technically-related-but-spiritually-tangential topics leads to a lot of conflation and misinformation about a subject that's already very fraught and uncertain.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Apologies for aggressively trying to keep some of these conversations on track. Side conversations about technically-related-but-spiritually-tangential topics leads to a lot of conflation and misinformation about a subject that's already very fraught and uncertain.

No problem. I shouldn't have involved myself at all.

 

[AwkwardMD]

No problem. I shouldn't have involved myself at all.

None of us are immune to the "someone is wrong on the internet" urge.

 

[Britva415]

It's entirely relevant if the question is 'can an LLM write better than many humans.'

Are you failing to distinguish between creativity versus "passes a proofread?"

Define "better," because there could be two different conversations here talking past each other.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Are you failing to distinguish between creativity versus "passes a proofread?"

Define "better," because there could be two different conversations here talking past each other.

Respectfully, that is a derailment.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I think that would turn into a process conversation as much as anything.

 

[TheLobster]

You can replace X office workers with Y smarter workers plus some AI. The ratio of X to Y depends on your business.

Sometimes that ratio will be less than one.

 

[metropolinational]

Sometimes that ratio will be less than one.

Of course. True with any technology. Try to replace a lineman with a tractor and soon you will need a lot more linemen!

 

[IWroteThis]

AI can already write better fiction than 90% of humans, maybe 95%.

Really? You'd better come with examples, if you're going to make a statement like that.

I don't think that the first comment above is that unrealistic, just irrelevant. I'm not sure if the misdirection was intentional or not, but the key is that the word used was "humans," not "writers." Even if you exclude all of the humans who can't write yet or who haven't completed all of their high school English classes, the vast majority of humans don't even claim to be able to write fiction, much less write good fiction.

 

[metropolinational]

I don't think that the first comment above is that unrealistic, just irrelevant. I'm not sure if the misdirection was intentional or not, but the key is that the word used was "humans," not "writers." Even if you exclude all of the humans who can't write yet or who haven't completed all of their high school English classes, the vast majority of humans don't even claim to be able to write fiction, much less write good fiction.

I meant humans. I dont believe high school improves anybody's writing skills, so I would have also not considered that, but I did mean people over (insert magical age at which you believe people become 'old enough' for whatever).

I can't define 'writer'. However, I would be comfortable saying that AI can write better fiction than a non-trivial proportion of the people who submit stories here.

 

[PennyThompson]

Okay fine, but what do you do with that if the answer is yes?

Live in the Brave New World, I suppose.

My plan is to be weirder, and write stranger

AI sucks, but it's also a catalyst for a revival of absurdist creativity.

You know why kids say 6-7? Because it doesn't mean anything, the joke is that it's nonsense. Interestingly, AI has a really hard time explaining 67. I asked ChatGPT to explain it to me, and it came up with

Because 67 is an accidental insult
Here’s the joke:

• 68 is funny because it sounds like “ate” → “You do me and I’ll owe you one.”
• 69 is funny because… well, obvious reasons.
• 67?
  It’s funny because it’s 69 that got interrupted.

So the punchline is that 67 should have been 69, but something went wrong. It’s humor by implication — your brain fills in the missing, slightly dirty context.

It’s the same logic as laughing at 404 errors or almost-but-not-quite moments. The comedy lives in what didn’t happen.

Which is both factually wrong and tonally cringe

 

[Erozetta]

I want to read badly written works by humans, because I want to offer them opinions that they may or may not take into consideration. We can discuss the pros and cons of those opinions so that human in particular can make the choice that works best for them and their story.

I don't want to help an AI learn how to arrange words in a coherent but meaningless way.

 

[MetaBob]

As someone who built a working neural network framework from scratch (for fun!), I may have more insight into this question than most, but frankly, most of what has been said here on this subject is just speculation.

Instead, I'll offer an actual example of what happens when AI rewrites a human-written passage. This is from Apple Pages, which recently included a capability to do this, from part 3 of a work-in-progress I keep hoping to post but keep finding small additional things to change. For those interested, here are part 1 and part 2, which were previously posted here, though edits to Part 2 have been pending for the past 7 days.

Especially for Erozetta ( ), here's a "badly written" (by me) original paragraph. Comments (or a 14K-word beta-read) are welcome:

Cian and Parker spent much of their days on or near the water, Cian mostly sailing and Parker mostly rowing. They got up early every morning, eager for too-sweet cereal and sunshine, like every day was a warm version of Christmas. On rainy days they played board games with whichever parents or grandparents were available, or taunted and cackled at each other over Mario Kart like old times. Bob’s heart felt full to bursting, seeing it, hearing it, living it. It felt like a miracle of triumph over technology, with very little screen time desired. The kids explored their environment: fishing with their grandpa or hiking in a nearby nature preserve, sometimes with their grandparents who often held each other’s hands, or with Jess or Bob when they weren’t working. Bob’s father showed them how to do most everything new to them. Bob’s mother taught them how to cook and bake some of Bob’s favorite meals and desserts from when he was growing up. Parker helped with soups and lasagna while Cian preferred baking cookies and brownies. Parker joined a local birdwatching group and enjoyed spotting seabirds and observing their behavior — the group pretty much adopted her as their little sister — while Cian loved watching dragonflies, hummingbirds, bees, wasps, ants, frogs, and tadpoles, which were plentiful. Bob encouraged them to write about their observations, organizing them into summer projects, catching and pinning insects they could present to their classes when school resumed. They were careful to avoid areas where ticks were an elevated risk. They both took tennis lessons — neither had played before — and bicycled together most places they wanted to go on the island. They also took photography lessons, for which Jess and Bob bought them digital SLR cameras, lenses, cases, and pods; not professional grade, but good. Their days were long, warm, and sometimes breezy. It was an idyllic time.

AI-rewritten version:

Cian and Parker spent most of their days near the water, with Cian sailing and Parker rowing. Every morning, they eagerly woke up to the sweet aroma of cereal and the warmth of the sun, making each day feel like a warm version of Christmas. On rainy days, they engaged in board games with their parents or grandparents or relished in playful banter and laughter over Mario Kart, reminiscent of their childhood. Bob felt a profound sense of fulfillment and joy witnessing their happiness and the carefree nature of their lives. It was a remarkable triumph over technology, with minimal screen time. The children explored their surroundings, fishing with their grandpa or hiking in a nearby nature preserve, sometimes accompanied by their grandparents who held hands. When they weren’t with their grandparents, they would join Jess or Bob, who were often away from work. Bob’s father imparted knowledge on various new skills, while Bob’s mother taught them how to cook and bake some of his favorite childhood meals and desserts. Parker assisted with soups and lasagna, while Cian preferred baking cookies and brownies. Parker joined a local birdwatching group, delighting in spotting seabirds and observing their behavior. The group affectionately adopted her as their little sister. On the other hand, Cian was captivated by the abundance of dragonflies, hummingbirds, bees, wasps, ants, frogs, and tadpoles. Bob encouraged them to document their observations, organizing them into summer projects. They carefully avoided areas with a high risk of tick bites. Both took tennis lessons, having never played before. They also cycled together to various destinations on the island. Jess and Bob gifted them digital SLR cameras, lenses, cases, and pods for photography lessons. Although not professional-grade, the cameras were still quite good. Their days were long, warm, and occasionally breezy, creating an idyllic and carefree atmosphere.

The most noticeable difference to me is that the AI-rewritten version is more bland and papers over my voice, which I happen to be fond of. It also loses some meaning (ex: "mostly sailing" -> "sailing"), introduces unintended detail (ex: "for too-sweet" -> "the sweet aroma of"), has a more passive voice (ex: "they played" -> "they engaged in"), and introduces more unnecessary adverbs (ex: "eager" -> "eagerly", "sometimes" -> "occasionally"), all of which are venial sins to this particular author.

"taunted and cackled at each other" -> "relished in playful banter and laughter"?
"like old times" -> "reminiscent of their childhood"? [They're both still kids, after all!]

Really? How can that absolute SHIT be considered "rewriting"? UGH!!!

So now we know what AI-rewritten text looks like circa early 2026. Don't submit something like this and your work will be much less likely to be tagged as AI.