Update content warnings to include AI usage

[Theresaisnotmenhera]

As per Scribble Hub's content guidelines, stories that consist primarily of AI-generated content are prohibited, although the use of AI is not strictly banned. The pertinent rule states:

AI Generated Stories - Stories created mostly by AI will be rejected. You can use AI to help create your stories but most of the story should still be written by you.

However, the language used in this guideline is vague in defining what constitutes "mostly." This has led to the acceptance of several stories with a significant amount of paraphrased content or portion generated by AI, carrying clear voice and tones of AI rather than of a human writer. In light of the inability to filter these stories, it is suggested that a model similar to that of Royal Road be adopted. Royal Road currently employs two tags:

AI-Assisted: The author has used an AI tool for editing or proofreading. The story thus reflects the author’s creativity and structure, but it may use the AI’s voice and tone. There may be some negligible amount of snippets generated by AI.


AI-Generated: The story was generated using an AI tool; the author prompted and directed the process, and edited the result.

Regardless of whether the two are to be merged into one, a more concise language and updated content warnings would provide readers with necessary information and a greater ability to filter out unwanted material, including establishing a clearer policy for the site.

Note: Content warnings should not be needed if AI is a glorified thesaurus for you, for example.

 

[Daydreamers]

Yes, it is.

The absolutely worst result I received from checking the text of the various stories was 12%.

I don't believe in AI detectors nor do I bother using them, but I tried copyleaks on that text to see and:

 

[Fairemont]

Yes, it is.

The absolutely worst result I received from checking the text of the various stories was 12%.

Which either means, 12% percent is AI generated, or the detection tool is 12% confident the text is AI generated.

That is not even remotely enough to doom someone's story, especially when the rules states "mostly" ...

...I suck at math, but 12% of anything doesn't mean "mostly" no matter how you look at it.

Covers on the front page as supposedly AI generated, however, they contain text which the AI couldn't do...

I am certain they are wrong about this.

I also tested other stories for supposed AI - or rather, I asked the "AI detector" and this is what it says....

I didn't find a single one that had worse result than 12%.

I fact, most do from 0 to 3 percent of certainty.

A lot of covers are AI created. People will add text on top of it, which is significantly easier for the average person to do. I'd wager 98% of covers of all self-published web novelists are AI-created.

 

[beast_regards]

A lot of covers are AI created. People will add text on top of it, which is significantly easier for the average person to do. I'd wager 98% of covers of all self-published web novelists are AI-created.

Of course they are.

The amateur / hobbyist couldn't spend from hundreds to thousands of dollars on custom covers on something he or she creates in her spare time.

Not on the tiny sites at this.

It is debatable even on commercial, big budget sites like Royal Road, as their system could easily sink even the professional book.

Yet, every reader is expected a cover, and won't even touch a story without one.

AI generated text of the story is something else, but even this doesn't justify the witch hunt on "suspected" witches AI users, especially when "AI features" are so ubiquitous, and marketing about the "AI" products so aggressive and misleading.

 

[Fairemont]

Of course they are.

The amateur / hobbyist couldn't spend from hundreds to thousands of dollars on custom covers on something he or she creates in her spare time.

Not on the tiny sites at this.

It is debatable even on commercial, big budget sites like Royal Road, as their system could easily sink even the professional book.

Yet, every reader is expected a cover, and won't even touch a story without one.

AI generated text of the story is something else, but even this doesn't justify the witch hunt on "suspected" witches AI users, especially when "AI features" are so ubiquitous, and marketing about the "AI" products so aggressive and misleading.

I started publishing on Royal Road and I'm pretty confident of all the stories I've seen only 2 or 3 have actual non-AI covers. There's more, but there is mostly AI covers.

I sort of made my own using royalty-free artwork and some mediocre editing skills. Lol

 

[beast_regards]

I sort of made my own using royalty-free artwork and some mediocre editing skills.

Does it help?

 

[Fairemont]

Does it help?

I have no idea. I never got many followers or anything.

I just started publishing here today so I'll see if I have any luck. I don't think my cover stands out that much, though. It's a good one, I think, but eh. Won't carry me to greatness!

 

[beast_regards]

I have no idea. I never got many followers or anything.

160 followers on the Royal Road in two months. That's not a lot, by their standards.

You get a lot of nice reviews though, which is unusual for them, so perhaps it helped after all

 

[Fairemont]

160 followers on the Royal Road in two months. That's not a lot, by their standards.

You get a lot of nice reviews though, which is unusual for them, so perhaps it helped after all

My new cover came after the 160 followers.

I've fallen off of basically all things that allow visibility there so I get next-to-no traffic at this point.

 

[beast_regards]

My new cover came after the 160 followers.

I've fallen off of basically all things that allow visibility there so I get next-to-no traffic at this point.

It's also ranks as 1% AI generated, which ...

...honestly, it's not surprising, this is where the other Royal Road's novel I checked hovers at, between 0 - 2.

How do you, however, prove it is not AI Assisted?

The detector I use is quite generous, as opposed to copyleaks.

How do you defend against such accusation?

Would you just shrug and hope that 160 followers you have would trust in your story, and you need nothing more?

 

[Fairemont]

It's also ranks as 1% AI generated, which ...

...honestly, it's not surprising, this is where the other Royal Road's novel I checked hovers at, between 0 - 2.

How do you, however, prove it is not AI Assisted?

The detector I use is quite generous, as opposed to copyleaks.

How do you defend against such accusation?

Would you just shrug and hope that 160 followers you have would trust in your story, and you need nothing more?

Anyone accusing me of using an AI system of any sort to write my story is off their rocker. Lmao

 

[beast_regards]

Anyone accusing me of using an AI system of any sort to write my story is off their rocker. Lmao

Why it is so?

Are you the guy who communicates with me with that fancy mechanical typewriter with USB?

Or perhaps a Linux fan?

 

[Fairemont]

Why it is so?

Are you the guy who communicates with me with that fancy mechanical typewriter with USB?

Or perhaps a Linux fan?

I just don't think my story is something that AI would be able to produce, nor do I write in a way that would be easily confused for AI writing.

 

[Garolymar]

As per Scribble Hub's content guidelines, stories that consist primarily of AI-generated content are prohibited, although the use of AI is not strictly banned. The pertinent rule states:



However, the language used in this guideline is vague in defining what constitutes "mostly." This has led to the acceptance of several stories with a significant amount of paraphrased content or portion generated by AI, carrying clear voice and tones of AI rather than of a human writer. In light of the inability to filter these stories, it is suggested that a model similar to that of Royal Road be adopted. Royal Road currently employs two tags:



Regardless of whether the two are to be merged into one, a more concise language and updated content warnings would provide readers with necessary information and a greater ability to filter out unwanted material, including establishing a clearer policy for the site.

Note: Content warnings should not be needed if AI is a glorified thesaurus for you, for example.

I'd like to get a human opinion on how I use AI, because I do use it for editing, especially since my raw typing is full of run on sentences and errors. I asked GPT and Grok but of course they're going to be very bias towards themselves

Spoiler

RAW:Just off the shore of a stormy island, sat lonely in the Bay of Kings, the Kraken Caller was anchored, a large ship marked with the adornments of its name-sake, Its salty rugged crew boarded small boats, loaded with silvery bolts, strange masks and pale body wrappings, stuffed haphazardly into crates. Their Captain, Galvos, was waiting on the shore, his boot stood firmly atop a barrel, watching his men with a grizzled stare as they prepared for the job ahead, “Come on boys, show some enthusiasm! We get this done and we’ll be fed fat for months!”

GPT: Just off the shore of a stormy island, alone in the Bay of Kings, the Kraken Caller sat anchored. The ship bore the jagged adornments of its namesake, barnacled hull, toothlike rails, and weather-beaten sails stitched with a curling tentacle. Her crew, salty and scowling, loaded small boats with crates stuffed haphazardly with silvery bolts, strange masks, and pale body wrappings. On the shore, Captain Galvos stood with one boot propped on a barrel, arms crossed and stare hard as stone. “Come on, boys!” he barked, voice carrying over wind and waves. “Show some enthusiasm! We get this done, we’ll be fed fat for months!”

Is this an egregious use of it? I dunno, I always look over any tags it adds to dialogue or word changes, I keep what I like if it makes sense for the scene but sometimes it sounds funky. I also talk to it a lot like I used to talk to my friend in HS about our stories, I'm curious what others think.

 

[3guanoff]

Don't take my words for it. Takes Microsoft's.
View attachment 38020

It supposedly works.

Grammarly for LibreOffice: Step-by-Step Walkthrough - Codeless

Today we discuss how to get Grammarly for LibreOffice so you can check grammar and plagiarism on any LibreOffice document.

codeless.io

Never verified it as I stopped using Libre Office when I stopped posting on the Fan-fiction.net


This I already addressed....



No one would willingly enable this.


The services like ChatGPT aren't Artificial Intelligences.

It's a glorified randomness probability generator.

It doesn't know what you are asking, it's merely put the most probable combination of letters together.

That article you linked, I take it you did not read it? Your time is valuable, but so is mine.
Quoting from that very article:

When using Microsoft Office, it fully integrates and begins checking once you download the free add-on. With LibreOffice, there isn’t an add-on or plugin for Grammarly.

Grammarly does have compatibility with your browser extension so you can download it and use the LibreOffice writer program to use it that way or you can use the other method. The other method is by downloading the Grammarly desktop app to your computer and uploading your saved LibreOffice text.

So your options are using the browser extension or the desktop app and copy-pasting text there from LibreOffice.

As someone worried about other people making baseless, ill-informed claims about their work, perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to other people's work. LibreOffice does not support Grammarly as of yet.

But after following this thread I do acknowledge that few people would willingly tag their stories as "AI-assisted".
Personally, I believe that if one uses a tool, one puts a trust in that tool. And if one puts their trust in something, one should be willing to stand by it... unless doing so will put one's life at risk.
If you trust AI enough to edit your work, you should be able to proudly declare as much.

Yet after reading the posts here, I acknowledge that currently, few people would be willing to do so since they are afraid of society's reactions.
Of course, if everyone truly were using AI, there would be no one left who could condemn them. Yet I imagine there would be a few hypocrites to take that position.

It's a glorified randomness probability generator.

It doesn't know what you are asking, it's merely put the most probable combination of letters together.

I am aware. Yet are our brains so different? Do they not, too, use prediction based on experience (input) to produce thought (output)?
I am no computer wizard, but someone explained to me that ChatGPT has a "thought" function which allows it to reflect. It generates something random, rates the output, and if necessary, repeats that process until the output is satisfactory.
Is that so different from what we do when we learn? We try one course of action, rate the outcome, and then adjust our workflow until we succeed or give up.

 

[beast_regards]

I am exhausted by this topic.

People continue to see this "AI Assisted" tag as some magical feature that would allow them to avoid so called "slop", however entirely forget that the scripts that continue to pump the mechanical translation to the site don't have feelings to feel ashamed and would not self-report themselves, only the humans would, and usually only because they used some in-build feature like the spell checker in some random software. In the end, your witch hunt would drive the honest writers out of the site, and leave you with the "slop" because the only thing which won't be alienated by your behaviour is the machine.

 

[Garolymar]

Personally, I believe that if one uses a tool, one puts a trust in that tool. And if one puts their trust in something, one should be willing to stand by it...

I agree with this, I also think most people would be fine admitting that they use AI if there wasn't this massive vitriolic stigma about it. I also think that eventually though it'll be kinda pointless one day, like if somebody had a tizzy about typing on a keyboard instead of using a pen or pencil, or how like digital artists or photographer were hated on their onsets.

I also get that there's levels to how blatant somebody can use AI, hell that's why I asked myself cause all the negative talk does make me wonder sometimes if I'm doing something wrong. I still think AI is a really cool tool though, and it'll bring more good than bad.

 

[RainingFish]

Instead of a tag for AI content, maybe it would be better to have a tag for no AI content.

 

[ForestDweller]

The Buggywhip manufacturers and slave plantation masters salute you. Stay the course. AI is as evil as electricity, hygiene, and the automobile combined!

AI-written content is crap. It always has been crap and it always will be crap. Guess what? 95% of DeviantArt 'art' was crap long before AI art was a thing, as was 95% of all written stories. If anything, AI has RAISED the quality of these uncreative brutes.

We don't need tags, what we need is for people who stumble across bad content to mark it as bad content. Why? no one is stupid enough to label their content as garbage, even if it is. 'recognizing' AI styles is one thing, but I have also read handwritten shlock that is every bit as poorly styled as AI junk.

And honestly, I love the way that AI artwork is clearing out all the complete nimrods from visual art with no talent that think they deserve to get paid like the next Boris Vallejo.
If your 'art' is poor enough that it can be replaced by AI, it deserves to be.

Finally, someone who gets it.

Most anime ai artists are actually awful at their work and they deserve to be replaced by custom config comfyui output.

And artists who are worth commissioning are usually out of your price range anyways.

 

[DireBadger]

I love this conversation, watching all the anti-AI people trying to explain why they aren't bigoted against people using a glorified spellchecker.

Read some stories about World War 2. seriously. Lots of people were using exactly the same language. "Oh, it's for their own good and safety, really!".

Humanity has an endless ability to justify its own bigotry. At least I am willing to admit my bigotry and have no need to justify it.