A novelist accused of using AI. Why the literary world still grapples with guardrails

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Gormagon

Since most literature is in one way or another rather generic (especially if something is published as series) I think it's only logically to use LLMs sooner or later. If someone comes up with a some novel plot, that sells really well, soon more writers will publish something similar to jump on the bandwagon.

That does not really need a LLM. My spouse has often commented on how many times in the romance novels she reads, an author published a book with a newish theme and suddenly a dozen other authors jump on the bandwagon. Sadly, all too often, those bandwagon jumpers produce books that my spouse labels as totally derivative (the MMC has green skin and horns while the original author's MMC has blue skin and scales but the rest of the story could have been done with copy/paste).

[JSWolf]

Is it AI checking if something is AI? Also, does this AI checker show what parts it thinks is AI generated?

[Cactus Chef]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Is it AI checking if something is AI? Also, does this AI checker show what parts it thinks is AI generated?

The original analysis came from someone on either Goodreads or Reddit, IIRC, who just said that some of the descriptions were weird and struck them as AI-generated. It's not clear to me who did the analysis beyond that, or if a bunch of news articles just picked it up and ran with it...

The one part that doesn't inspire confidence is the author asserting that they didn't use AI, but that some pieces may have been "rewritten by an editor using AI".

So, ok...that's a claim you can substantiate with evidence. If Reddit person points to specific paragraphs as showing evidence of being written by AI, the author could show us the original paragraphs from their working draft. As far as I'm aware, though, they haven't done that.

[Frogm4n]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

The one part that doesn't inspire confidence is the author asserting that they didn't use AI, but that some pieces may have been "rewritten by an editor using AI".

So, ok...that's a claim you can substantiate with evidence. If Reddit person points to specific paragraphs as showing evidence of being written by AI, the author could show us the original paragraphs from their working draft. As far as I'm aware, though, they haven't done that.

This is really the part that sticks up a big red flag for me, too. She also could have... asked that editor? Why would she allow her career to be tossed away on an unfollowed up "I don't know"?

[nana77]

Originally Posted by nana77

Imho there is a line between copying, and making an appreciation to another author.
Severeal years ago there has been many of those "appreciations", e.g. in SF there were themes that would have become common, or machines that one "build" on a novel, and lately others "copied" by including them on their stories. That happened also into the music.
That's certainly - imho - an human interpretation, of a work started by someone else, olso often it was really an appreciation to that, but that ofc is something made within a counsciousness. Otherwhise I don't know how that wouldn't be just business.
As a consumer I won't point fingers at all, I'd just won't buy if not enhanched by.

Just finished the intro where it's mentioned about (and it's from the '70s): the editor is explaining a part of the SF's story, and it classifies/separates interesting operas from what's call mass by-product or mainstream, that in his opinion has always existed and always will exist: every 10 novels (in SF in this case) that came out, one of them is an adult, authentic work; he says "you can go on a library and see that for every good title there are derivate shoddies".
From ten of those authentic, adult novels ones, five will be not successfull tries, or just not mature/adult, two or three will be attempts just on an above step from the commercialism, saved by a good idea or a nice prompt. Will remain a pair, from that selection, which will be interesting, authentic sf.
And sf is a genre where (editor's consideration) on dozens and dozens of thousands writtings in 40 years (the intro is from the '70s, as previously mentioned), not more that 500 or 600 did reached artistic levels, 100's are indisputable mastepieces.
And sf is a genre that, compared to the mainstream, did offered a copious amount of those very good writtings on a that short time (40 years in this case). Out of the sf genre, he asks, how many operas can bear the wear of the time? One hundred, to be generous (on a mass production of 100000 each year).
It's a concrete proof that, other than sf being a complete literature, so often the mainstream - within its noble exceptions - acts as a child, won't become adult, plays within the words and the sentiments and within the facts, and collapses any time more on ideas' crisis, of sentiments, and styles.

[jackm8]

Video mentioned in the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbeKTa5xhZo

[Cactus Chef]

Originally Posted by jackm8

Video mentioned in the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbeKTa5xhZo

Ah, the plot thickens. The video indicates that the book was self-published before being yanked so that a major publisher could re-publish it.

Surely if "an editor" introduced the AI slop, it would be possible to compare it to the self-published version and determine when the suspect passages were introduced, no?

But I'm guessing the author is not going to do that, because it might further cement the conclusion most people have already come to.

The fact that the original cover was apparently lifted shamelessly "from Pinterest" does not inspire confidence, either...

[Quoth]

Pinterest: A parasite on the Internet, often with no attribution of source.

[haertig]

It appears the article describing this AI stuff in the original post of this thread may have been written by AI itself:

[jackm8]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

Ah, the plot thickens. The video indicates that the book was self-published before being yanked so that a major publisher could re-publish it.

Surely if "an editor" introduced the AI slop, it would be possible to compare it to the self-published version and determine when the suspect passages were introduced, no?

But I'm guessing the author is not going to do that, because it might further cement the conclusion most people have already come to.

The fact that the original cover was apparently lifted shamelessly "from Pinterest" does not inspire confidence, either...

Franky, I've no definite opinions on the thing. If it was AI written, it was sloppy. If it wasn't, it was a niche audience pulp genre that I'd have no interest in. What I'm confident is that AI used by a smart writer, would be very hard to detect. Not to write a whole novel, but to help write passages of it, some dialogues, or such. That thing is really worrying.

[Cactus Chef]

Originally Posted by haertig

It appears the article describing this AI stuff in the original post of this thread may have been written by AI itself:

Seemed to me like it was saying, "45 percent of the submissions were rejected, and about 80% *of those rejections* were due to being suspected of being AI-generated."

Is your suspicion that the AI is pulling two different percentages from different places, or that a human author wouldn't have omitted the implicit "of those rejected"?

[PeterT]

Today on the CBC program "The Current" they had a segment "Could readers like AI books more than ones written by humans?"

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio...written-humans

The new thriller novel “Shy Girl” by Mia Ballard has been pulled from shelves over speculation it was written by AI and it's throwing the literary world for a loop. Questions are being raised about what role AI could, and should, have in creative writing in the future. Can it write better than humans? Does it matter? Authors Stephen Marche, Andrea Bartz, and Vauhini Vara join us to talk about it.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

Is your suspicion that the AI is pulling two different percentages from different places, or that a human author wouldn't have omitted the implicit "of those rejected"?

No - my suspicion is that the article spelled percent ... "per cent". Twice.

[nana77]

Originally Posted by PeterT

Today on the CBC program "The Current" they had a segment "Could readers like AI books more than ones written by humans?"

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio...0-could-reader

(imho) That's another point which have been mentioned on the preface I'm reading, the importance of good critics, sometimes journals like New York Times had better and clearer views than specific magazines.
Sometimes specific magazines also did them critics basing it on a not-well-enought novel as comparison (as it was the bestest ever, and comparing others to that).

Did "Shy Girl" get its advertisements from the talks it was meant to have by the whole "scandal"?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

No - my suspicion is that the article spelled percent ... "per cent". Twice.

I hate to rain on your parade but outside the USA, per cent is the more common usage.