People are using AI but not disclosing it. How do you detect it ?

[The Radiance's Follower]

So. Many people in a lot of website are using AI to "write" stories these days. QQ has not been spared. I can feel that some stories use AI but I have no proof. And I don't want to throw shade at someone and it not being AI.

Th worst thing is that the premise of some of these stories are interesting but when you read it you get a flash bang of AI slop.

I am not counting in people who just use AI for proof reading.

How do you prove that a story is AI ? I personally just look at the tempo and punctuation. Also the usage of em dashes is a sure sign but not a definitive one. AI stories have a certain measured way of writing. It takes a lot of time to move from one scene to another.

I am tired of investing myself in a story and then start suspecting it's AI. Will there ever be a solution ? I am begging for the AI bubble to pop.

 

[ALandWithNoName]

hm. i forget what the term is in psych, but one of the implied problems is that simply reading a series of words . . . oh, priming!
the problem i see, is that the more ai stories are written, the more are read, and the more inclined people are towards priming in the same way ai is writing. a literal self-reinforcing loop.

How do you prove that a story is AI ? I personally just look at the tempo and punctuation.

Click to shrink...

basically, i disagree. i think people are simply going to emulate more and more what they read. as ai gains more exposure, people imprint on the style, and it loops around.

generally, i would look for concrete logic mistakes. for example, a paragraph establishing something one way, and then three paragraphs later, hard contradictions of the first paragraph. 'x had fiery red hair' 3 paragraphs later 'x's cerulean hair blows in the wind'

sometimes, you get lucky, and the prompt is left in the final draft. to be honest, i think that's really the only surefire way.

now, about em dashes... how the fuck do i approach that topic? i am greatly inspired by a certain 1890's author named Joseph Conrad. I want to make very clear, that English was not his first language, and he was not from the US.

Article:

TO MY READERS IN AMERICA​

From that evening when James Wait joined the ship—late for the muster of the crew—to the moment when he left us in the open sea, shrouded in sailcloth, through the open port, I had much to do with him. He was in my watch. A negro in a British forecastle is a lonely being. He has no chums. Yet James Wait, afraid of death and making her his accomplice was an impostor of some character—mastering our compassion, scornful of our sentimentalism, triumphing over our suspicions.

But in the book he is nothing; he is merely the centre of the ship's collective psychology and the pivot of the action. Yet he, who in the family circle and amongst my friends is familiarly referred to as the Nigger, remains very precious to me. For the book written round him is not the sort of thing that can be attempted more than once in a life-time. It is the book by which, not as a novelist perhaps, but as an artist striving for the utmost sincerity of expression, I am willing to stand or fall. Its pages are the tribute of my unalterable and profound affection for the ships, the seamen, the winds and the great sea—the moulders of my youth, the companions of the best years of my life.

After writing the last words of that book, in the revulsion of feeling before the accomplished task, I understood that I had done with the sea, and that henceforth I had to be a writer. And almost without laying down the pen I wrote a preface, trying to express the spirit in which I was entering on the task of my new life. That preface on advice (which I now think was wrong) was never published with the book. But the late W. E. Henley, who had the courage at that time (1897) to serialize my "Nigger" in the New Review judged it worthy to be printed as an afterword at the end of the last instalment of the tale.

I am glad that this book which means so much to me is coming out again, under its proper title of "The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'" and under the auspices of my good friends and publishers Messrs. Doubleday, Page & Co. into the light of publicity. Half the span of a generation has passed since W. E. Henley, after reading two chapters, sent me a verbal message: "Tell Conrad that if the rest is up to the sample it shall certainly come out in the New Review." The most gratifying recollection of my writer's life!

And here is the Suppressed Preface.
1914. JOSEPH CONRAD.

Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17731/17731-h/17731-h.htm

i have personal feelings about the usage of em dashes in English. they can be summed up as truly proper expression of our limited vernacular. the disdain of em dashes i see as nothing but barbarism. use them.

 

[The Radiance's Follower]

snip

Click to shrink...

Pretty disappointing conclusion. So there is no way to find out if a story is AI unless the author reveal or self-report by being lazy enough and leaving mistakes. Mistakes that an author that is not using AI can also make.

 

[Sofyan]

Easy: so many em dashes. Common in AI edits and creation. It's not x, it's y. Overly detailed description.

Overall, I just read it as it is. And if it's bad, I'll hide it.
If it's good, I'll keep reading.

But, it's common for many AI works (or feel AI, since there's no exact evidence) that makes me feel bored. Some of it is really good, or the author has great idea but use AI to edit it. For those, I keep reading it even if it's AI.

 

[Lightbringer]

So. Many people in a lot of website are using AI to "write" stories these days. QQ has not been spared. I can feel that some stories use AI but I have no proof. And I don't want to throw shade at someone and it not being AI.

Th worst thing is that the premise of some of these stories are interesting but when you read it you get a flash bang of AI slop.

I am not counting in people who just use AI for proof reading.

How do you prove that a story is AI ? I personally just look at the tempo and punctuation. Also the usage of em dashes is a sure sign but not a definitive one. AI stories have a certain measured way of writing. It takes a lot of time to move from one scene to another.

I am tired of investing myself in a story and then start suspecting it's AI. Will there ever be a solution ? I am begging for the AI bubble to pop.

Click to shrink...

I see punctuations.
A.I will use too many commas and use hyperboles.
Outside that, I don't care much, it would be good if they said mainly because of the people who dislike it.

 

[qOwOp]

Just read until the slop overwhelms your tolerance for it. Then drop it.

Why even try to prove it?

 

[The Radiance's Follower]

Just read until the slop overwhelms your tolerance for it. Then drop it.

Why even try to prove it?

Click to shrink...

That's one solution. But reading takes time, I already spend hours and hours reading and I don't want to invest myself in something that has been purposefully made to disappoint.

 

[Chicanerous_Monk]

generally, i would look for concrete logic mistakes. for example, a paragraph establishing something one way, and then three paragraphs later, hard contradictions of the first paragraph. 'x had fiery red hair' 3 paragraphs later 'x's cerulean hair blows in the wind'

Click to shrink...

This is the main way. And it's infected even published works on Kindle, sadly. Even authors I've followed for years have become guilty of it.

The first logical consistency mistake, I let pass. No one is perfect and maybe they just forgot something they wrote earlier. But I become much more aware, and the next time it happens I drop the story.

Especially when the mistake is only a chapter apart. The characters forgetting a conversation they had 2 pages back and rehashing it, acting like they never discussed it before, is a very obvious sign of AI doing the writing.

 

[FTR2017]

How do you prove that a story is AI ? I personally just look at the tempo and punctuation.

Click to shrink...

I've found that the laziest fucks using that disaster of programming origin do not even bother editing the shit it spews.

So, you'll soon find that inside the same chapter the damned thing repeats itself in different iterations. Then there's how it self-contradicts in background details, or even actions.

There is no thought put into it, there is no actual conscience in the slightest.

It is all 'dramatic' in a nothingburger sort of way.

I've found my fair share of AI trash that used interesting premises ... which were wasted on the waste of flesh that used said AI trash to generate it.

They don't deserve to even get the 'write' verb. They are lazy fucks who expect people to pay them money to recoup their subscription investment to peddle AI diarrhea slop.

The saddest part? There are morons who actually toss their hard-earned money their way instead of actually paying a commission writer who's proven that they aren't AI generator users.

At least the fucks who use AI to generate, then edit the diarrhea to make it at least make some fucking sense bother to edit the digital abortion. I still don't like them, but I respect them an iota more than the lazy ones who don't even care.

 

[The Radiance's Follower]

It is all 'dramatic' in a nothingburger sort of way.

Click to shrink...

This is generative AI in a nutshell. Everything it generate in any medium it touches feels off. No matter how polished it looks. It's all shallow. For example, AI 'art' is 'pretty.'

I am glad I am not the only one who feels this way. I see people complaining in comments but it's just not the same as expressing it with as much vitriol as you can in writing. You said it better than I could ever do.

I've found my fair share of AI trash that used interesting premises ... which were wasted on the waste of flesh that used said AI trash to generate it.

Click to shrink...

Such many cases. You get excited and start reading. You feel your chest tighten as your eyes analyses every word, sentence, and piece of evidence. Until you can't deny it anymore. The story you were reading is straight Trash. Slop made from the Slop machine.

Every action that the main character does is a geological event in action. Whatever that means.

I wish the worst on every person using AI to write or generate art hoping to make money out of it.

 

[The Radiance's Follower]

In other news. Keep in mind that all AI made content is not under copyright protection. Do with that what you will.

 

[FTR2017]

I wish the worst on every person using AI to write or generate art hoping to make money out of it.

Click to shrink...

I see that you're a fellow follower of the 'Fuck AI and the Techbros who spawned them' Dao.

May the implosion of their industry drag them down to hell where they belong for facilitating laziness at everyone's expense.

And may their servers get looted of the resources they hogged, be they solid state hard drives, graphics cards, and components.

Fuck AI, and not in the QQ approved way!

In other news. Keep in mind that all AI made content is not under copyright protection. Do with that what you will.

Click to shrink...

Hold on, you mean to tell me that if I use AI nonsense I can pirate Disney crap and get away with it?

 

[da3monh0st3d]

so many em dashes

Click to shrink...

Emacs and LibreOffice make those easy to input though, so it's not a reliable sign in itself.

edit:

Hold on, you mean to tell me that if I use AI nonsense I can pirate Disney crap and get away with it?

Click to shrink...

If in USA, the court recently said that generated content is not protected.

Presumably willful attempt at copyright laundering will still fail because they love copyright.

 

[FTR2017]

If in USA, the court recently said that generated content is not protected.

Presumably willful attempt at copyright laundering will still fail because they love copyright.

Click to shrink...

I bet they'll add an addendum where the owner of the AI generator in question is the one who owns the products or some tripe like that.

 

[da3monh0st3d]

I bet they'll add an addendum where the owner of the AI generator in question is the one who owns the products or some tripe like that.

Click to shrink...

The company that owns the generator (OpenAI, etc) is responsible for attempts?

For all that it'd be hilarious to watch the industry instantly implode as a result, that has far too many problems as a doctrine to ever be applied (imagine being liable as a manufacturer for a kitchen knife being used in a stabbing).

Of course the knife doesn't waste so many resources being made, but the resource waste needs addressing separately.

 

[The Radiance's Follower]

I see that you're a fellow follower of the 'Fuck AI and the Techbros who spawned them' Dao.

Click to shrink...

Senior brother. Those Ai tech bros have eyes but have not yet seen mount tai that is in front of them. Here's hoping they crash on it.

I bet they'll add an addendum where the owner of the AI generator in question is the one who owns the products or some tripe like that.

Click to shrink...

The US supreme court ruled that for something to be eligible for copyright protection it needs an author behind it. And while the meaning of author is not defined they said that it's clear that author means human author and a machine doesn't count as being able to be an author of anything.

Hold on, you mean to tell me that if I use AI nonsense I can pirate Disney crap and get away with it?

Click to shrink...

I see what you are thinking but sadly not. While the AI art itself is not protected by copyright the character is. But anything that doesn't have a big IP behind it is free for the slaughter.

 

[da3monh0st3d]

And while the meaning of author is not defined they said that it's clear that author means human author and a machine doesn't count as being able to be an author of anything.

Click to shrink...

There was a case with a monkey and a photograph a while ago that had the monkey found ineligible for copyright.

 

[FTR2017]

Here's hoping they crash on it.

Click to shrink...

Crash on it? How generous! I'd hope that they bury themselves at the foundation, just so that they never rise up again!

And while the meaning of author is not defined they said that it's clear that author means human author and a machine doesn't count as being able to be an author of anything.

Click to shrink...

I bet the corpos will be bribin' them judges in no time just so that corporate entities can fulfill the purpose of 'author', especially if no actual human was involved in the slightest!

Gotta save them coins, one scam at a time!

But anything that doesn't have an IP behind it is free for the slaughter.

Click to shrink...

So many original works free for the plunder! My second chin quivers at stealing their work for our greed! To the judges! Briiiibe!

-- A corporate moron, most likely.

Of course the knife doesn't waste so many resources being made, but the resource waste needs addressing separately.

Click to shrink...

Don't forget that unlike the knife, all AI stuff is literally electrons in hard drives. One mistake and woops! There goes their archive!

So, less than worthless all in all!

 

[Sofyan]

Emacs and LibreOffice make those easy to input though, so it's not a reliable sign in itself

Click to shrink...

By itself it's not (I also write using those sometimes). But when I can see too many sign I know it's AI edited or created.

 

[Megaolix]

And I don't want to throw shade at someone and it not being AI.

Click to shrink...

I just saw the thread and I do need to note something that does matter:

You're not actually allowed to throw shade at people about using AI. Rule 1 and all.

 

[Lightbringer]

I am not anti A.I.
If anything I want further use of A.I to finally put a silly...theory to rest in the cemetery where it should be at, since for as long as we have the state of affairs at it is, people will find reasons to parrot idiocy at the winds and claim they do their silly stuff to defend the...people.

 

[The Radiance's Follower]

I just saw the thread and I do need to note something that does matter:

You're not actually allowed to throw shade at people about using AI. Rule 1 and all.

Click to shrink...

Don't worry I don't mean insulting or being mean, I might hate generative AI for being useful at nothing but making slop. But I feel pity more than anything for people using it since they will never improve at the skill they are making the AI generate and are just wasting time scamming people out of their time. Or at least that's how I feel every time I read an AI generated story.

Just calling out that the story is using AI so other people can be aware of it or at least confirm that they are not crazy.

Since if the use of AI is not disclosed no one has the mean to find out other than just guessing.

I don't mind proof reading using AI. Just generating the whole of it.

 

[Megaolix]

Just calling out that the story is using AI so other people can be aware of it or at least confirm that they are not crazy.

Since if the use of AI is not disclosed no one has the mean to find out other than just guessing.

I don't mind proof reading using AI. Just generating the whole of it.

Click to shrink...

See, that's the issue. We do not allow that either.

In particular, you are not allowed to harass people over using AI; like any other harassment, this is a violation of Rule 1.

Click to shrink...

The AI 'witch hunt' will be beaten down until it ceases.

 

[FTR2017]

I don't mind proof reading using AI. Just generating the whole of it.

Click to shrink...

You're too generous. I do not appreciate AI-proofing, as it's more likely than not to screw the pooch, but I can understand its use if no editors can be found. Hell, I remember Microsoft Word 2003 making less mistakes in its autocorrect than this AI crap.

If no editor of flesh and blood can be found, write as well as you can, then see if any poster proposes edit changes to your work that you agree with.

See if pattern repeats, then ask if they're willing to proof-read it earlier, read ahead of the thread, and all that.

 

[Chicanerous_Monk]

See, that's the issue. We do not allow that either.



The AI 'witch hunt' will be beaten down until it ceases.

Click to shrink...

I don't mean to start an argument or anything, but the full quote is:

Discussion of AI tools, including criticism, is allowed. All such discussion is still subject to the other rules of QQ. In particular, you are not allowed to harass people over using AI; like any other harassment, this is a violation of Rule 1.

Click to shrink...

So it sounds like, to me at least, you are allowed to discuss whether something is AI generated or not. You just can't be a dick about it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Megaolix]

So it sounds like, to me at least, you are allowed to discuss whether something is AI generated or not. You just can't be a dick about it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to shrink...

You can point out issues AI makes and all, like if someone make mistakes in their writing and all. If you show up just to say this is AI or ask if this is AI, that's going to be read as a witch hunt.

 

[FTR2017]

You can point out issues AI makes and all, like if someone make mistakes in their writing and all. If you show up just to say this is AI or ask if this is AI, that's going to be read as a witch hunt.

Click to shrink...

Would telling a poster of obvious AI crap that 'their crap is AI from all the myriad quotable faults one can find it, so please try harder in at least editing the abortion in question to polish the turd' be also considered a witch hunt, or would it count as actual feedback?

Naturally, I'd use gentler language as a nod of respect for Rule 1 unlike what I've used here.

If it still somehow counts as 'witch hunting',, I'll stick to my policy of putting an obvious AI crapfic in the Ignore list so that it doesn't bother me ever again without saying anything.

 

[Megaolix]

Would telling a poster of obvious AI crap that 'their crap is AI from all the myriad quotable faults one can find it, so please try harder in at least editing the abortion in question to polish the turd' be also considered a witch hunt, or would it count as actual feedback?

Naturally, I'd use gentler language as a nod of respect for Rule 1 unlike what I've used here.

Click to shrink...

That would be like if someone grammar's sucked and point out mistakes, so it would be allowed.

The main thing is you cannot throw shit at a story merely for being AI written.

 

[FTR2017]

That would be like if someone grammar's sucked and point out mistakes, so it would be allowed.

The main thing is you cannot throw shit at a story merely for being AI written.

Click to shrink...

Thank you kindly for the clarification!

I now no longer have to seethe quietly should another digital abortion dash my hopes and dreams! And it will be productive, to boot!

Jokes aside, such feedback alone would curb much of the AI crap abuse polluting the creative writing sections by shaming the posters into at least correcting their garbage.

 

[aquinas]

...em dashes can be one, but it was more the tonal inconsistency of the em dashes that set it off. AI, unless specifically instructed, tends to mess up the register of conversations. Perfect grammar with emoji or informal language in the middle of something formal. That's a clue, but you run into people that are just that way, so, you gotta go back and check if they've got a history. If they were using diaeresis and all four types of common dash back in 2018, they're probably just weird.

Not X, but Y. Thing, thing, not thing and its inverse. Larger thing thing not thing structures. On the paragraph scale, the AIs still like that way more than an actual writer. The insane consistent purpleness of the prose. [ADJECTIVE] [CONTRADICTORY ADJECTIVE] and [TWO UNRELATED GODDAMN ADJECTIVES] If it pops up a couple times at normal intervals, sure. If it's every damned paragraph, you aren't fooling anyone.

There's also the spots where they've got themself a prompt and they've clearly told the AI to include "EXACTLY SOME HUNK OF TEXT EXACTLY THIS WAY" and the voice just is completely disjoint for that sentence / phrase / bit of text. The opposite, when they've just used AI to "clean up" something particular, pisses me off almost as much.

The last big one, I think, is the "editing inconsistency" class of AI strangeness. People losing their plot or swapping positions, details inverting - the "Black Hair" "Blonde Hair" sorta problems - in the absence of any of the other signs that they were going through and editing a draft. Losing the plot like that without the awkward human kludge sentences you'd expect to see if they weren't going through the document carefully.

All that to sum up: inconsistent tone for the specific medium, structurally identical (if not totally identical) purpleness, hard breaks in tone, and a lack of tool marks.

Bonus points if its got ALL OF THESE and they've posted 80K words in less than a week.

Edit: Oh, also Tool marks on hard tone breaks! Just ran into that a moment after posting *serviceable amateur text. serviceable ama***** (Blatant slop is the most luxurious, but austere slop).