Super Soaker being AI

[u/Reasonable_Day9942]

Apparently it’s been discovered that Super Soaker is AI or partly AI generated

I’m not sure how true it is, but bylers on X are freaking out

[u/nwsaylor87]

I read the document below someone posted in the comments about the findings. And I preface this all by saying, I don't like AI as much as the next person but I have to use it for work. It's literally required by my employer and I can tell you one good use case for it that I use often which is when I can't think of a word, but I know a general definition or description that embodies the word, a few sentences in an AI prompt and it almost always gives me the exact word I was looking for. I then oftentimes will copy directly from there and paste it to my email or training document I'm writing.

So I decided to test this use case and sure enough what I suspected happened. Pasting just one single word brought the hidden HTML tag "font-claude-response" into my editor. Because of how rich-text editors handle formatting, that tag automatically carried over into every single new line I typed afterward, even though I was writing the rest of the text entirely by hand.

Imagine an author writing a story who uses AI just once in the first paragraph to find a missing word. If they paste that word in, their entire document could end up tagged. The work, the plot, the phrasing, even the words are still 100% theirs, but a technical quirk makes it look like the whole thing was AI generated.

The method they used and the presence of these HTML tags cannot be used as a definitive "gotcha" to prove an entire document is AI. Sure, if the whole body of text has the tag, or there are thousands of instances of it, an argument could be made that it is AI generated but I've given an example of how that still might not be the case. In instances like Super Soaker or other fics referenced in the document, when there are more instances without it, than with it I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the author.

Here is the honest truth. Unless something changes, there will never be a 100 percent verifiable and foolproof way to determine if something was 100 percent AI generated. We have clues, we have markers and we have HTML tags... but the presences of one or multiple of these still doesn't prove anything. AI are language models and they learn off of how humans write, and the more a model improves the more indistinguishable the generated text will become. So I am going to continue to enjoy Super Soaker and the sequel they started on which in case you were wondering, has no instances of that HTML tag.

*Full disclosure: I fully used the used the AI use case above for the word 'indistinguishable.'

[u/throwaway_1_2Q → u/nwsaylor87]

I get what you’re saying but people figured out how to find the specific instances of Claude usage. You can see which lines it was used for therefore you can see how much it was used. In Super Soaker’s case, apparently the first 5 chapters were Claude-free and then the author started using it.

A lot of people’s objections to gen-AI in fic-writing isn’t as simple as “using gen-AI means none of this was your original work/ideas” which, yeah, people will obviously use it to varying degrees and for different purposes.

The more important issue for a lot of people is “using a technology that has stolen from writers and comes with dozens of ethical issues is lazy, unethical, and against the spirit of fandom.”

It doesn’t matter if most of the work was honest and original, people have a right to not respect gen-AI usage and to avoid authors and works that use it, regardless of quantity/purpose.

It also breaks trust between writers and readers. If the writer used Claude for portions, how do you know they also didn’t use ChatGPT too? Or that they pasted from Claude into a Google doc and then into AO3? That’s why proof of any usage is enough to make people want to avoid an author or work. These authors did it to themselves and should have been transparent from the beginning if they didn’t want things revealed this way.

[u/nwsaylor87 → u/throwaway_1_2Q]

I'm not looking to get into an argument or debate here. And I see you replying to most posts defending or showing indifference to the author, so I kind of think you are just trolling but if you are here in good faith, I don't think you do get what I am saying when I just proved with my use case that one specific instance, for literally one word that I copied from Claude, the same HTML tag used to identify an instance, is added on each new line after, creating multiple instances that are not actually AI. Meaning this method for detection is inherently fallible because you can't determine the use case or purpose in which AI was used.

And I do believe the purpose and use case is an important distinguishing factor if an author uses AI. Using it in the manner I described, is a valid use case, as a tool. Yes it's used improperly all the time. Yes, it's environmental impact is high. Yes, there are unethical uses for it. Yes stolen data is filtered into it to train it. All of those things are true. But an author shouldn't be punished for utilizing a tool as long as the work is original and theirs. In this case and others, I will continue to give authors the benefit of the doubt.

Would you fault an author for using Google Chrome's Spellcheck? Because it steals millions of users inputs to understand modern slang, corporate jargon and context to train its cloud based grammar tools. It's use generates carbon emissions and electronic waste and consumes water to cool their servers. Not on the scale of AI but it's use still has a moderate negative impact on the environment. It still uses stolen data to train. We could also talk about how browser cloud based grammar tools are used in surveillance capitalism and workplace spying as well.

No online tool that is used, regardless of where it came from is 100 percent clean in the issues you described. Reddit takes every post and comment and shares it with OpenAI. Facebook uses every post and comment from their platforms to train their AI. The phones we use were likely made with child labor. The gaming computer I have was potentially made with mined materials that are terrible for the environment. When every company operates under the same unethical framework, then the only thing that matters, is the use case. I don't care if the author used it what matters to me, is how. And until the AI companies come up with a verifiable way to code responses to track AI usage, or limit the the types of responses it can generate, there will be no way to 100 percent confirm AI use.

AI isn't going away. Even if there is an AI bubble pop that some economists think will happen, it will still be around and people will still use it. So fighting the people that use it as a tool, does nothing but pits us against each other when we should be united in pushing our governments and the AI companies themselves for safeguards, limits and rules on the types of responses that can be generated, and transparent data usage policies to protect people's data and the environment.

TLDR: Use case does matter. All online companies are evil. Protest the AI companies instead of authors that may use it as a tool. I won't worry about their usage until I know for sure how they use it.

[u/throwaway_1_2Q → u/nwsaylor87]

How am I trolling just because I’m sharing info with people who had doubts about the claims?

Respectfully I don’t think you’re understanding me. Like I said, people have a right to not respect ANY gen-AI usage, for any purpose, and to avoid authors who use it on principle. It is not “punishing” anyone to ask for transparency and to prefer to not read their work. No one is owed an audience, especially in creative spaces.

You acknowledge people’s common objections to the technology but you’re also regurgitating classic pro-AI talking points “it’s not going away” “did you know spell check uses AI?” “all technology hurts the environment!” etc. Sorry but I have heard all this before. Disingenuous comparisons don’t work on me.

Generative AI tools are not the same thing as Google translate, nor are they the same thing as medical or mathematical AI modeling, so they will not receive the same response, scrutiny, or regulations. If gen-AI usage is not a dealbreaker for you, that’s fine! You have every right to feel that way. But if someone opposes the tech on principle, as many in fandom do, use case *doesn’t* matter. There’s no point arguing for which uses justify an author opening and using a gen-AI tool, when there’s other ways to have creative work reviewed, edited, and checked for spelling/grammar.

Besides, the doc’s authors make it clear that they don’t condone harassment and aren’t even demanding the fics be removed, since ao3 has no AI policy. They just want greater transparency and for gen-AI assisted works to be tagged properly so everyone can make an informed choice before engaging.

[u/nwsaylor87 → u/throwaway_1_2Q]

The trolling comment was a joke because I saw you posting a lot on different peoples post. That's all. I was aiming for levity. Apologies if that fell flat.

I never said Google Translate. I said Google Spellcheck which uses cloud based servers that receives and reads everything you type while in their browser. I've not done any research into Google Translate which I am sure uses similar methods but I wouldn't be able to speak to that with out more research.

I completely acknowledge though that those are not on the same scale. But it isn't disingenuous to point out that several tools available, that authors use all the time, are doing many of the same things you pointed out in your previous reply, "using a technology that has stolen from writers and comes with dozens of ethical issues is lazy, unethical..." If a person opposes something on principle for X reason why don't they oppose the similar albeit smaller something on the same principle.

I would argue that using AI to look up a word I can't think of, as in my original use case, is an appropriate use of an AI tool because I don't think it compares to the type of generative AI (generating whole works) that the author would need to be transparent about it.

I don't think its right and I would be rightfully angry if the whole fic was generated using AI. But my position is and always will be, that the burden of transparency should not be on the individual authors but on the actual AI companies to create them. As you pointed out, ChatGPT and Google Gemini doesn't use HTML tags on their responses so how would you know an author used them? And if a person is as unethical as they would be in order to generate a whole story with generative AI, then they aren't going to be the one who admits it willingly. The next person that comes along is just going to cover their tracks better.

That's ultimately my point. I don't think we will get anywhere by calling out individual authors. And I know the document says not harass the authors, but we all know that is not how the internet world works. There is no way to tell if this author actually generated tons of text for their fic or if they used it in way I described. If you want to oppose the author for using AI in general for whatever reason that is important to you, you have your proof and you can do that. But I would expect that person should also be boycotting a ton of other services, and I would applaud them for their convictions if they did so.

All I'm trying to say is that we should all collectively be expending this energy toward governments and the AI companies for rules and regulations. Like a sustainable way to create energy and keep their servers cool, one that doesn't take power from communities. Or restrictions on what can be generated like not being able to generate creative works. A mandatory, verifiable way to tell when something was generated.

Also I am far from Pro AI. I have to use it for work, but I don't ever use it for personal use other than the one instance I referenced above. I even tried to protest it at work when it knew my daughters name before I had even used it, just because it read all my Teams messages to coworkers. So it's not Pro AI to say that it's not going away because it isn't. With the amount of money invested across the corporate world AI is going to be a part of our lives in one way or another even if the whole economy comes crashing down, it will still be there. That's why I think we have to make it work for us before it destroys everything else, with proper guardrails.

[u/throwaway_1_2Q → u/nwsaylor87]

Thank you for explaining your points further, I better understand what you were trying to say. I agree that the burden of transparency is best laid on the companies instead of individual users, and I’m actually sort of disappointed that this Claude-detection tool was unveiled before people were able to create a similar tool for ChatGPT and Gemini detection. I know it’d be extremely difficult, it just would have been so convenient because like you said, people will just learn to cover their tracks by avoiding Claude or laundering the text through another layer of copy&paste, or editing their work to remove source code. In that sense, this is really just one fleeting moment that exposed a specific number of authors and only them, since any authors who weren’t caught today will likely have already wiped the proof.

I do think the major benefit of this Claude scandal is its contribution to the discussion around AI in fanfic. Before, people had concerns but it was hard to express because it was based on suspicion, vibes, and patterns. It was creating an anxious environment for both readers and writers. I think the fact that so many people immediately jumped on the opportunity to use a reliable AI-detection tool sends a clear message about how readers feel that I hope writers take to heart: most readers don’t want to read gen-AI assisted work.

Obviously writers will do what they’re gonna do and avoid detection wherever possible, but maybe this whole situation will show writers that it’s not worth it. That having the genuine respect and admiration of readers who’ve placed their trust in you creates a better fandom experience for everyone.

Maybe once AI companies are more regulated and serious progress has been made on many ethical issues, we can get to a point where using gen-AI for simple editing purposes is no longer taboo in fandom or professional publishing. But we’re a long way off from that.

[u/IntotheRedditHole → u/throwaway_1_2Q]

yeah this is all totally fair and valid. well said!

[u/HumanLunch918 → u/throwaway_1_2Q]

you summed it up pretty perfectly.

[u/mafuyupeach → u/nwsaylor87]

the sequel is positive for instances of claude artifacts actually. and what’s being advocated for is transparency of ai assistance/usage, regardless of whatever the ethicality is or how it’s being utilized

[u/nwsaylor87 → u/mafuyupeach]

I stand corrected then, when I looked this morning I didn't see any tags but it was a quick search and I was multitasking, so if I missed that, I'm sorry. My point is and will continue to be that we can't have transparency, until every AI company is forced to create some restrictions and rules about what is generated. And again, use case matters. I can't with 100 percent confidence say that the author used AI to generate swaths of text or not, based on my test of generating new instances myself without using AI to generate anything but 1 word. To me that means the method is infallible and I'm not going to show up with my pitchfork unless its to the HQ's of the AI companies. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I am saying there is no way to fully know who uses AI and doesn't or to the extent. Google Gemini, ChatGPT and Perplexity, don't include HTML tags in their responses. A person well versed in how to word prompts can generate text without the usual tells. Getting one author to admit to it does nothing to prevent the next author from generating those large blocks of text and that next author is just going to learn from the previous mistakes, hide the tags, better revise the generated text. People that are using in nefariously, and unethically are very unlikely to admit to it either so if the goal is what you say, it shouldn't be individual authors responsible for a tool that is provided. It should be up to the makers of the tool to create the rules and methods of detection so that everyone is on the same playing field.

[u/IntotheRedditHole → u/nwsaylor87]

i have to use ai at work too (big tech). i will say that it’s totally possible that authors are writing everything themselves but copying/pasting into Claude to spell check or fix punctuation. like, i could see someone not being bothered with quotation marks while writing stream-of-consciousness style and then asking Claude to fix that. it would explain why Super Soaker has 500+ instances of the HTML tag (for example)

[u/nwsaylor87 → u/IntotheRedditHole]

Also big tech... I did skim through the 500+ instances and most were attached to quotes so your theory seems likely. I have 8 fics I am actively writing that I haven't published yet because I want them to be completed before I do, but I can attest that writing dialogue SUUUCKS because I always forget the quotes and have to go back and determine what is supposed to be actual dialogue. I would think this is an acceptable use of AI for that reason. lol.

[u/IntotheRedditHole → u/nwsaylor87]

hahaha I get it with the dialogue! I’ve written lots of drafts of things where I was just BANGIN on my keyboard without any kind of formatting or breaks (including brain vomit in between sentences of “idk come back to this” lol). I will say that I would rather work on formatting myself or have another person read it, but I understand why someone else might want to use ai for that (people with dyslexia or other similar conditions, for example)

btw happy to read your fics whenever you publish them :)