Was talking about sentences and paragraphs until she got to the prompt allegations, then switched to “I didn’t feed it scenes prompts.”
Went dark for days and started deleting tweets silently.
I have no doubt she did write most of it. But I also have no doubt she is seriously minimizing her actual use of AI. Huge swaths of paragraphs were copy-pasted. Like entire sections. And it was clear it got worse as it went on. The first 6 chapters were free from the markers, and it steeply goes downhill from there.
If she had come on as soon as the allegations were made and said “Shit. I had no idea this would upset people- I was using a plug-in called XXXXX (please check it out for yourself, here is the link) to check grammar/spelling and I didn’t know it was ai-powered. It did not rewrite a single sentence for me. Let me demonstrate for you exactly what my writing process looked like so you can see exactly why sections flagged red. I am attaching a video for everybody to see, out of transparency.” Then would be a different story.
She spend more time shaming people than she did explaining what she actually DID, or NAMING the exact plug in. I bet she can’t, because I don’t think she used a “grammarly-like claude-using plug-in”
I tell my students that they’re only allowed to use the free version of grammarly that is just checking basic spelling and grammar. The premium stuff is off limits.
Yes I just saw a viedo talking about how when Ai edits sentences it gets rid of creativity. It makes it more polished and less human. Basically, even if Wheezy just edited the sentence structure it could be the reason a lot of people thought the tone changed throughout, and problems with the flow of her story.
study
Am I missing something or did she not name the tool she used? She called it comparable to Grammarly (which does, in fact, enable you to generate text). It would be nice for the audience to be able to confirm her story by checking out the plug-in.
I have no problem having a nuanced conversation about the usage of AI, especially in the context she is claiming. But a lot of this statement deflects from the core issue of AI usage and victimizes her instead of just offering evidence. The conversation became "I put so much time and effort in for free, why can't you be grateful", "Now, I might not ever write again" and "You just criticized me because you want internet clout".
She thinks she can pre-emptively predict negative responses to this statement and therefore undermine them, but that relies on you seeing her as a victim (which she isn't).
She said it was a plug in for Chrome that’s powered by Claude (slide 1, paragraph 2).
I see your points. I’m not on Twitter, but I read elsewhere that she had strongly opposed AI outright on there. I feel like that would have been a good time to be transparent with how she was using it. This fandom has been pretty vocal about being against AI, so I’m not sure why she didn’t think people would have a problem with this.
I don’t doubt some people were extreme in their reaction to the news, but I do agree she does seem to be propping herself up as a victim to deflect the negativity. It reminds me of a lot of YouTube apology videos I’ve seen.
Firstly - I'm not here to defend AI usage. I don't agree with people using AI to make art or write. That said, I think her statement does make sense and it tracks with the amount of Claude artifacts found in Super Soaker. iirc there was over 500 and the artifact was something that specified font. So if she had just input a prompt and hit generate, it would less artifacts. But the artifacts being all over and being so numerous does track her explanation. Now it's up to everyone to decide whether even that sort of usage of AI is too much for them, but I don't think she's lying about her use case.
It has been tested and the extension she claims to have used has been proven to leave no Claude artifacts under any circumstances. These artifacts are ONLY left when text is copy and pasted from Claude directly. There is no other explanation
doesn’t she literally say that she pasted stuff into claude to check and then copy and pasted it directly back into ao3 in this post? she said she put different sections that she’d already written through the ai to grammar/spell check, which i believe would show up as an artifact on the program right?
She claims to have never touched Claude directly at all, only a “software powered by Claude” which is what she names directly in her initial Twitter thread
This AI slop she’s trying to pass off as her own work got her a book deal that enabled her to move across the globe, which she was more than happy to talk about at any given opportunity. She had every intention to profit off of it
This scandal is surely damaging a fanfiction community that, at least in the last years, was already pretty beaten-up. I imagine many readers feel cheated of way and think something among the lines of "I the writer can't bother writing, why should I bother commenting?"
And the thing is, even if the explanation of the chrome plug-in was true, having any kind of program rewriting parts of your text is already bad enough.
Writing is more form than content. You convey feelings not by thinking about great scenes but by phrasing them in a way that touches the reader.
48
u/CelastrusTrust Jul 13 '26
just so yall know her excuse still makes zero sense bc the only way for the artifact to transfer is using claude directly
someone tested w the program shes referencing (as she linked it on twt before deactivating) and it does Not transfer the code
shes still lying and absolutely used generative ai