The Story Submission Issues Thread

Quote by Seeker4

That's really how these tools should be used and I don't think that's a problem. Frankly, though, these tools are not perfect and I rigorously use the "Ignore" option when I know they are wrong. One worry I have with these tools is that they enforce a particular set of rules and styles when language is, and should be, more fluid than that. They can discourage artistic license and developing one's own style in favour of a bland homogenization of language (which is also my concern about AI writing tools, really).

Exactly Seeker. The few times I looked at Grammerly it wanted to rephrase sentences in such a way it distorted the meaning i was trying to convey.

I write in Hiberno-English which AI bots of whatever colour or creed don't understand. At least when the mods send a story back I can try to argue the case as to why it is acceptable writing.

End of the day, this is a site for amateur writers, it's not the Booker Prize.

Quote by deviantsusie
End of the day, this is a site for amateur writers, it's not the Booker Prize.

And, to be honest, it's amateur writers who are more likely to need and use these tools. The likes of Hilary Mantel are quite capable of putting out epic prose without them.

I hope you read my previous post where I suggested that the day is not far off where AI-based tools will be integral to word processors at which point I am not sure a ban on them will be enforceable anymore. Someone will be able to bash out the blocks of unformatted text with no paragraph breaks or dialogue indications that I used to kick as a mod, then Word or Docs or whatever will politely convert it to readable, passable text.

Now, the various rules violations that were usually buried in those blocks of text are another matter. 🙄

AI might help a story be better, but it won’t help the person using it to be a better writer, imo. And, I still hold out that AI can’t be as creative as my imagination.

Quote by KimmiBeGood

AI might help a story be better, but it won’t help the person using it to be a better writer, imo. And, I still hold out that AI can’t be as creative as my imagination.

It can't but I am seeing a scenario where someone with imagination but no writing skill or talent to speak of bashes out their idea however they like, certainly not in a way that would pass moderation, then lets AI make it publishable.

Quote by Seeker4
Lush is simply going to have to live with the knowledge that a certain percentage of submissions are assisted or rewritten using AI because there will simply be no way to control what tools a writer is using when those tools are built right into the software most people use to write.

I agree, aside from the fact that if the author relies on the tool too heavily, the result will be bland and derivative.

As stated above, all the current crop of grammar checkers try to make people's writing into homogenised garbage by applying rigid rules that are often contradictory when applied to something that is artistic in nature. That's what they do because they have no flair.

Look at it this way. If the entire literary output of the human race online is represented under a standard bell curve, with badly written tripe on the left below about 3%, and the epitome of writing on the opposite end, above the 97th percentile on the right, what's left is the majority of writing that is neither crap nor great. Assuming a roughly normal distribution (bit of a stretch but with so much data it'll tend towards this), most writing in the world will be centred around the average and taper off at the edges; better or worse.

The so-called artificial intelligence engines are trained on everything under the bell curve, so 94ish percent of the time they're going to (re)produce mediocre content at best. And probably 68% of the time they'll produce something so mind-numbingly average it'll bore people to tears.

My advice if you want to get better at writing, is ditch such tools because they'll hamstring you to be a boring also-ran author. But if you're starting out, by all means use them to help with the technical aspects, and then learn to ignore them when they're holding you back.

Just for a grin, since I haven't tried one before, I ran one of my stories (A Good Night's Work) through Quillbot.

129 grammar errors and 39 additional "Premier Membership" issues. Overall grade 73 out of 100.

How did it ever get passed for publication?

Quote by kistinspencil

Just for a grin, since I haven't tried one before, I ran one of my stories (A Good Night's Work) through Quillbot.

129 grammar errors and 39 additional "Premier Membership" issues. Overall grade 73 out of 100.

How did it ever get passed for publication?

And if you'd accepted all 168 suggestions, it would have dragged your story from the 'great' end of the bell curve towards the 'average' central area or, I suspect, below that because it won't understand your unique writing style and will massacre some of the more eccentric and colourful phrasing you employ as master of your craft. Plus it'll downright destroy the text exchange at the start.

Quote by HornyBill
when it comes to finality, I am the one who eventually makes that call

And that's a good way to use the tool. Let it guide you but know when to kick its teeth in.

Imagine if you were a lazy writer, though, and just let it rip through your story unchecked or, in some hideous not-too-distant future, let it 'assist' you as you write in your word processor to make your writing "better"?

How can it make your work better when its frame of reference includes at least 68% of all human content that is barely average?!

P.S. I know I'm being simplistic in my bell curve analogy because there's no sensible way to grade content from bad to excellent, and there are different types of content (reference, factual, literature, poetry, journals, magazines, science fiction, romance, etc) all with different parameters and usages. But the fact remains that, however the AI is trained and slices and dices the entirety of human content, each slice/genre will statistically contain well-written and not-so-well-written content. The engine gobbles it all up and doesn't know which is which, then regurgitates the average when it's asked to help. People who are below average will get a boost, people who are above average will have their work diminished if they let it meddle. And the result when the "new" works are published is likely to include more content centred around the median for the engines to consume...

Quote by WannabeWordsmith
the more eccentric and colourful phrasing you employ

WBW! You make me blush saying such sweet things. Miss Pixel is beside herself with laughter. 😈

Quote by The_CunningLinguist

I only used it for punctuation and spelling, not to change words or phrases. I liked all the sentences and words to be mine. I only did this when it got sent back twice. Both times, I was told it was punctuation errors. Rather than use my old eyes to try and find every missed comma, I let the program find them for me. And then my story went through.

I only use it for punctuation and verb tense. Never ever would I accept all of the recommended changes because some are just daft. I don’t use any of the paraphrasing features either. I have no intention of allowing a computer to change my author’s voice.

That being said, it is the best online tool I have found as far as finding my pesky punctuation problems. I just wish it would stop suggesting I change Pussy to Pussycat. 🤣

Quote by WannabeWordsmith

P.S. I know I'm being simplistic in my bell curve analogy because there's no sensible way to grade content from bad to excellent, and there are different types of content (reference, factual, literature, poetry, journals, magazines, science fiction, romance, etc) all with different parameters and usages. But the fact remains that, however the AI is trained and slices and dices the entirety of human content, each slice/genre will statistically contain well-written and not-so-well-written content. The engine gobbles it all up and doesn't know which is which, then regurgitates the average when it's asked to help. People who are below average will get a boost, people who are above average will have their work diminished if they let it meddle. And the result when the "new" works are published is likely to include more content centred around the median for the engines to consume...

It's like kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. Stiffle individuality and difference until everything is the same. What a depressing thought.

Quote by deviantsusie

It's like kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. Stiffle individuality and difference until everything is the same. What a depressing thought.

It is. But it doesn't have to be that way. Nobody gets better at something by letting a machine do it for them.

Use it to assist the writing process and learn the ropes. Then develop a style and leave it behind. The people who rely on tech will be sorely disappointed when they don't gain traction or their work is shunned for being derivative nonsense.

The good news is that people who work at their craft will still out-imagine the machines and will rise above the masses.

Quote by Seeker4

That's really how these tools should be used and I don't think that's a problem. Frankly, though, these tools are not perfect and I rigorously use the "Ignore" option when I know they are wrong. One worry I have with these tools is that they enforce a particular set of rules and styles when language is, and should be, more fluid than that. They can discourage artistic license and developing one's own style in favour of a bland homogenization of language (which is also my concern about AI writing tools, really).

I use these tools as a last stop in the editing process to make sure my punctuation and verb tense are correct. I ignore any suggestions to change my wording. That’s my job as the writer—to choose my words carefully and make the best use of language possible while creating an interesting story.

When I suggest QuillBot to authors as a mod, I’m doing so to help them start to recognize repeated errors and to help their stories pass no matter which mod is approving them.

And to answer another question, if a mod is not comfortable with a story subject, we pass on it for someone else to pick up. We do not return stories unless there are grammar issues or acceptable use issues.

For what it’s worth, when I taught English, I used to always provide a variety of tools for my students: dictionaries, thesauruses, books of quotations , and whatever else I felt would enhance their writing. These days, those resources are digital and still have a place in developing writing skills. I absolutely do not think people should use the features that have AI writing for them or that offer better ways to say something. That changes the author’s voice entirely. I do, however, wholeheartedly believe in using tools to help authors get a better handle on punctuation and verb tense. And yes, punctuation matters.

Let’s eat, Grandma is a far cry different than Let’s eat Grandma. 😉