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.
The absence of the common definition aside, the site, as it is, has this covered through their content rules, which states that any novels purely generated by the AI are forbidden on site in the first place, and would be rejected by Tony immediately after being submitted. See, the approval process is completely manual, and thus any story that passes the metaphorical Tony's sieve should be considered admissible as far as the AI content (and US law) goes.
Adding the tag as this point would put the approval process in question, and would most likely be used as the way to actively harass the competition rather than filter out any harmful content.
TL;DR: ToS forbid AI generated; tag for all AI modified / partially generated content; if AI edits good, mark of quality; 20+ people support shows need.
The ToS are for not allowing purely AI generated stories. The proposed AI warning, as I understand it, is for AI edited / partially AI generated stories. That is, stories where AI changed your words. People can decide if they want to use the warning or not. If those changes are not noticeable, perhaps they do not wish to use it.
Or, if AI edited stories are indeed grammatically and stylistically superior, it could develop into a mark of quality, I suppose.
In the first place, since 20+ people support this proposal, it is rather daring of you to call it pointless.
The ToS are for not allowing purely AI generated stories. The proposed AI warning, as I understand it, is for AI edited stories. That is, stories where AI changed your words. People can decide if they want to use the warning or not. If those changes are not noticeable, perhaps they do not wish to use it.
Or, if AI edited stories are indeed grammatically and stylistically superior, it could develop into a mark of quality, I suppose.
The Grammarly, Pro-Writing Aid, Google Docs in-build checker, even the Windows 11 is called AI assisted this day.
Everyone is using the AI features these days, and they either cannot be disabled, or could, but it would either neuter the entire program, and you would have to go out of your way to do it.
In the current atmosphere of mass hysteria, no one in their right mind would enable the warning that would label him or her a "witch" in the "Internet Witch Hunts".
It ultimately doesn't matter if you used the AI or not, the accusation is enough, and writers would go out of their way to sabotage their competition, just as it happens on the other sites.
Just look what this caused on the Royal Road.
Yes, it has a lot of support, but it is a lot of support from the people who don't know what they are asking, and think the rule wouldn't apply to them, but it isn't true. It applies to everyone capable of even interacting with this thread, because the most companies already included AI in their product, most importantly Microsoft and Google.
Still, it's a valid point, I think. They implemented policies that are requested there, and it didn't help anyone, just make another excuse for people trying burn each other.
Everyone is using the AI features these days, and they either cannot be disabled, or could, but it would either neuter the entire program, and you would have to go out of your way to do it.
In the current atmosphere of mass hysteria, no one in their right mind would enable the warning that would label him or her a "witch" in the "Internet Witch Hunts".
It ultimately doesn't matter if you used the AI or not, the accusation is enough, and writers would go out of their way to sabotage their competition, just as it happens on the other sites.
I do not doubt that many people use AI. I doubt many are using it well.
However, I can with 100% certainty tell you that not everyone is using AI.
Many people still use ancient versions of word. How do I know this? Because they ask for support on the mailing lists I use.
I myself use LibreOffice and I know at least two writers on this site who do as well.
As for those who use modern word, just because a product has features for using AI does not mean you need to use those features.
Hence, for now, your claim that "everyone" uses AI is very easy to disprove.
Some of the best authors I've read used a typewriter, and I doubt that will change any time soon.
I do not doubt that many people use AI. I doubt many are using it well.
However, I can with 100% certainty tell you that not everyone is using AI.
Many people still use ancient versions of word. How do I know this? Because they ask for support on the mailing lists I use.
I myself use LibreOffice and I know at least two writers on this site who do as well.
As for those who use modern word, just because a product has features for using AI does not mean you need to use those features.
Hence, for now, your claim that "everyone" uses AI is very easy to disprove.
Some of the best authors I've read used a typewriter, and I doubt that will change any time soon.
You couldn't connect to the Internet with a mechanical typewriter, and you certainly couldn't post to Scribble Hub with it, so we could scratch this option off the list. No one is doing it, because it is simply physically impossible.
Similarly, we could rule out using any old hardware, it would struggle to process the webpage.
Using Linux and Open Source software is possible, but not probable, considering sheer difficulty associated with running the thing and doesn't rule out using AI in itself as they aren't prevented from using the online features in the slightest (except the stability of Linux)
Using old version of Word is an option, but still...
At least one or more of the following applies to the majority of users:
- Use Windows 11. and will use Windows 11 in the future once support of 10's ends.
- use Google Chrome, Opera GX, Firefox with in-build AI features
- use Google Docs with in-build AI features
- use new versions of Word in-build AI features
- use Pro-Writing Aid which is considered AI
- use Grammarly is considered AI
- use Thesaurus which is also AI
It's just a vast majority of users don't consider above "AI" while it is all marketed as one.
They think the rule won't apply to them, but it is so broad so it would apply to the most people, especially at the situation where marketing purposefully blurs the meaning of the "AI" in the first place.
You couldn't connect to the Internet with a mechanical typewriter, and you certainly couldn't post to Scribble Hub with it, so we could scratch this option off the list. No one is doing it, because it is simply physically impossible.
Using Linux and Open Source software is possible, but not probable, considering sheer difficulty associated with running the thing and doesn't rule out using AI in itself as they aren't prevented from using the online features in the slightest (except the stability of Linux)
Nowadays, using Linux is easier than Windows. Sure, not all distros, but there are dozens of them aimed at users who are switching from Windows, and to those users, usability and ease of use are basically the same.
I would agree with you 10 years ago, maybe even 6 if we push it. But today? Nope, sorry. You are wrong here.
Every person I know irl (who is on Windows) uses old Word versions, where 2011 is the newest among them. They only use those "AI-enchanted" ones at work, cause it is mandatory there.
There is nothing wrong with old Word versions. I, too, used Word 2007 for years before switching to Libre two years ago.
At least one or more of the following applies to the majority of users:
- Use Windows 11. and will use Windows 11 in the future once support of 10's ends.
- use Google Chrome, Opera GX, Firefox with in-build AI features
- use Google Docs with in-build AI features
- use new versions of Word in-build AI features
- use Pro-Writing Aid which is considered AI
- use Grammarly is considered AI
- use Thesaurus which is also AI
While I mostly agree;
- Windows 11 with "AI" is only available on specified laptops with high-performance processors (for now). The majority of users will not get them.
- gDocs don't have "AI" features. At least not yet. Spell checker is not "AI," even if they want to market it like that.
- Like above, Word doesn't have "AI" but a spell checker. The "AI" enchanted version is available only on laptops with greenlighted processors.
- Grammarly is "AI," but it doesn't rewrite everything for you; it shows what can be altered to obey the writing rules. You aren't forced to accept it. Very good tool to help writers make fewer mistakes, especially when they don't have dedicated correctors and English is not their first language. So technically, this is also a spell checker but on steroids.
Nowadays, using Linux is easier than Windows. Sure, not all distros, but there are dozens of them aimed at users who are switching from Windows, and to those users, usability and ease of use are basically the same.
I would agree with you 10 years ago, maybe even 6 if we push it. But today? Nope, sorry. You are wrong here.
Linux Mint was around 10 years ago, and it was as useless back then as it is now.
Yes, it has a graphic GUI, as most of the Linux have one these days (even Arch), but it doesn't make it useable. What the Linux users fail to comprehend is that vast majority of Windows users don't want to tinker with the system for an hour to use it for the five minutes. They want to browse the Internet, watch videos, play game, and they expect it just works. Nothing on the Linux just works.
Thus I very doubt there are many users of Linux bothering with writing and posting on the Scribble Hub. It is possible, but considering how the Linux community works, they are most likely using all their creative talent to write code which would prevent their computer from spontaneously combusting from using Linux, and not bother with "novels".
If there are there, I bet they love ChatGPT as ChatGBT is the only thing that could generate a chapter before the Linux session inevitably crashes.
Every person I know irl (who is on Windows) uses old Word versions, where 2011 is the newest among them. They only use those "AI-enchanted" ones at work, cause it is mandatory there.
There is nothing wrong with old Word versions. I, too, used Word 2007 for years before switching to Libre two years ago.
While I mostly agree;
- Windows 11 with "AI" is only available on specified laptops with high-performance processors (for now). The majority of users will not get them.
- gDocs don't have "AI" features. At least not yet. Spell checker is not "AI," even if they want to market it like that.
- Like above, Word doesn't have "AI" but a spellchecker. The "AI" enchanted version is available only on laptops with greenlighted processors.
- Grammarly is "AI," but it doesn't rewrite everything for you; it shows what can be altered to obey the writing rules. You aren't forced to accept it. Very good tool to help writers make fewer mistakes, especially when they don't have dedicated correctors and English is not their first language. So technically, this is also a spell checker but on steroids.
Linux Mint was around 10 years ago, and it was as useless back then as it is now.
Yes, it has a graphic GUI, as most of the Linux have one these days (even Arch), but it doesn't make it useable. What the Linux users fail to comprehend is that vast majority of Windows users don't want to tinker with the system for an hour to use it for the five minutes. They want to browse the Internet, watch videos, play game, and they expect it just works. Nothing on the Linux just works.
Thus I very doubt there are many users of Linux bothering with writing and posting on the Scribble Hub. It is possible, but considering how the Linux community works, they are most likely using all their creative talent to write code which would prevent their computer from spontaneously combusting from using Linux, and not bother with "novels".
If there are there, I bet they love ChatGPT as ChatGBT is the only thing that could generate a chapter before the Linux session inevitably crashes.
This is not a topic about Linux, so I'll be short.
I agree that Mint was shit 10 years ago, but now it "just works," same as most distros based on ubuntu.
Tinkering and stuff are on Arch-based systems only. Ubuntu-based comes "ready to use" and it "just works" from the get-go.
You can also run most Windows apps by simply... downloading exe and double-clicking it - at least on Mint. So if you really want to use it, you can use it.
Games? Every single one of them runs on Linux, sometimes even better than on Windows. That I know from practice.
Sure, there are a couple of games (like League of Legends) that need some "persuasion" to run (as developers try to make it not work here), but you can count them on one hand.
You can thank Steam and their years-long, heavy work with Proton for that.
Stability? Only once have I seen Linux crash, and it was due to a user deliberately deleting system files.
I had Windows crash on me multiple times a day, and I can't count how many times it forced an update when I was doing something important or playing a game. There are no such problems on Linux.
Linux is not only for "programmers" or "tinkerers." This is a normal, everyday stable system for everyone that "just works" out of the box, unless you deliberately pick a distro that is aimed at those who want to tinker with things.
That belief that "Linux is only for nerds" lost its truth years ago.
Btw, Android and iOS are also Linux (well, Unix), but no one has problems using it
Back to the topic, leaving Linux and its usefulness (or not) aside.
Real AI - as in actual artificial intelligence - would be a system capable of independent thought, understanding, reasoning, and learning in a general way, not just from pre-fed data. It would:
Understand context like a human does
Reason and plan to solve new problems
Learn continuously from experience
Adapt to unfamiliar situations without needing retraining
In short: real AI is synthetic general intelligence - an artificial mind, not just a statistical parrot trained on a dataset. We’re not there yet. What we call AI today is mostly just glorified pattern matching.
How to classify it? Well, quite easy, actually.
When it comes to using that glorified pattern matcher in writing, you can tell when someone's overusing it. The text ends up clean, polished, and completely soulless. Characters talk like Twitter bots, plots run on rails, and the whole thing feels like someone washed it in bleach.
You get stories packed with tropes, zero friction, and no tension. Everyone says the perfect thing at the perfect time in the most generic way possible. It’s like eating flavorless pudding - technically edible, but who the hell wants it? And if the tone keeps shifting or scenes feel copy-pasted together, you’re probably looking at "AI" duct tape holding the story up.
It is especially visible in dialogues that are overpacked with wordy/flowery action definitions (example below);
I was the cause that the Author of said novel started using "AI" to help remove some errors. You can see the first few chapters, how it started.
What pains me the most here is not him using that help, but overusing it by making "AI" write scenes for him.
I'm sad and kind of disgusted by myself due to how it ended.
It's super easy to spot those stories, and it is them that should be considered for "filtering," not someone using GPT (or others) to polish ideas, and then write them themselves. Grammar checks and correct verb suggestions should not count there, as the exact same work would be done by a human editor/corrector or the author themselves, if they are good enough with the language they are using.
To sum it up;
Using it to brainstorm? Sure. To polish a sentence that’s fighting you? Go for it. Need help with typos and punctuation? "AI" can help here. But once you let the machine start making the story’s decisions, you’re not writing anymore - you’re just babysitting a glorified thesaurus with confidence issues. And it's those things that should be filtered by that content warning. And I'm all for it.
Android (and Steam Deck) comes paired with the hardware out of the factory with someone else doing the troubleshooting before you get your hands on it. None of it happens in any other Linux distro, even ones which come with some dreaded nvidia support like Garuda (which is Arch so much for "gaming" distro)
...but that's beyond the point...
Most commercially sold software, including Android, comes with "AI features" making this discussion rather ridiculous, but strangely on topic. You literally have to struggle with Linux to avoid AI accusation.
To sum it up;
Using it to brainstorm? Sure. To polish a sentence that’s fighting you? Go for it. But once you let the machine start making the story’s decisions, you’re not writing anymore - you’re just babysitting a glorified thesaurus with confidence issues. And those things should be filtered by that content warning. And I'm all for it.
The content rules clearly state that AI generated content is banned, and this is what you describe.
This is already actively enforced by moderation.
AI "assisted" is a ridiculous witch hunt which, if taken seriously, would hurt everyone regardless of their opinion of AI, because of the poor people's poor understanding of how it works and lack of any meaningful definition.
The Context Guidelines don't outright ban it, and it is why the "AI assisted" tag would work;
What can we define with "mostly"? I'd say above half of it.
So you can use "AI" to write half of the story, then edit it slightly or expand it yourself and boom - it passes the "filtering" by staff, shows on the website, and quite often lands in trending.
And this is a problem, because me (like many others) don't want to read that slop.
AI "assisted" is a ridiculous witch hunt which, if taken seriously, would hurt everyone regardless of their opinion of AI, because of the poor people's poor understanding of how it works and lack of any meaningful definition.
Royal Road had or may still be doing this. Though, you had people aimlessly trying to call things AI. When they were not, or went after people who did label their stuff as AI assisted.
It could be the most little thing, and they’d blow a fuse. It comes down to, that they do not understand the basic things.
They don’t understand that AI has been a thing for years, it really just took a massive leap in the past few years.
Editing, auto corrections, prompts, and so on. What ended up happening, with their lack of understanding. As well as, inability to see whether or not a story is majority written by AI or not.
Is that they ended up targeting everyone. All I am saying is, when you open one gate. You open a whole flood, it should be handled carefully.
I was the cause that the Author of said novel started using "AI" to help remove some errors. You can see the first few chapters, how it started.
What pains me the most here is not him using that help, but overusing it by making "AI" write scenes for him.
I'm sad and kind of disgusted by myself due to how it ended.
I'm not sure what this means, but that "polished AI" section looks a LOT like some of my first drafts when get on a sort of a roll and just keep typing.... then go back and find a lot of words missing, and a few sections repeated or uneven later.
And a kind of clarification - much of what the marketing departments now call "AI" is stuff we've been using for decades. It is not quite true AI, but is approaching that status.
The AI assisted tag isn't an objective indicator of whether the story was indeed written by, or assisted by, AI.
It's an accusation. It doesn't require proof, and it certainly doesn't require to be true.
Ultimately, it isn't any different from creating a few dozens of accounts to down vote other stories "no one wants to read that slop", and you may help it a little.
The rating isn't an objective meter of the quality, and AI assisted tag isn't an objective meter whether the story has been indeed generated by AI, as neither of it requires a proof along with independent evaluators.
You just point a finger at someone you don't like, and have them deal with fallout.
In happens on the Royal Road, it happens on Twitter, it happens on Deviantart (which allows AI art posting), it's a witch hunt that won't help anyone as the writer who never used AI could end up at receiving end of accusation against which is no defence.
for that tag to work, authors need to be honest, and for them to be honest, people need to accept them, and if people do accept them, the tag is useless and doesn't do justice to creative writers;
for that tag to work, authors need to be honest, and for them to be honest, people need to accept them, and if people do accept them, the tag is useless and doesn't do justice to creative writers;
And that's why it should be reviewed by moderation before anything happens, and they should punish those who falsely accuse others.
...but for that to work, the site would need said moderators, as Tony alone will not be able to handle it. Back to where it started.
