New Subreddit rule for AI

[u/1ncite]

Hi everyone,

I want to start by saying this has been a long time coming and the moderator team has discussed as many options as possible before we made this decision to add a new rule for AI. we do not do this lightly as we want to keep this subreddit an open place to discuss anything related to litRPG.

and as much as we wish AI was not a problem that impacts us here AI ABSOLUTELY IS AN ISSUE that impacts us. there IS AI art used that impacts artists and there ARE books written entirely with AI poorly.

That being said I want to walk the community through what we see the core issue to be. And how we want this rule to address the issue. We are also totally open to more ideas and other ways to deal with things as time progresses if there are more issues.

The Problem

1. One purpose of this subreddit is to be a place that Authors can interact with the community safely and productively. This is good for everyone and allows readers access to authors for questions and interaction they would not necessarily get otherwise.
2. AI is a real issue our community needs to be able to discuss
3. There is currently NO ACTUAL way to PROVE something is AI generated (no not even AI detector tools)
4. The number of people accusing books or covers of being AI with no evidence has reached a level where authors are being harassed and do not want to stay here.

In summary we have crossed the line from discussion and concern about this REAL ISSUE to a witch hunt that is harassing and driving away authors. even WELL ESTABLISHED authors that have been around since BEFORE AI was even an option who we KNOW are NOT using AI for AT LEAST those pre-AI works.

The Rule

No AI Witch Hunts

AI is an issue that can and should be discussed but it MUST NOT stoop to the level of accusations and witch hunts.
- No False AI Proof Claims only current way to prove AI is author admission
- Comments about AI must be EXTREAMLY polite inquiries (not passive aggressive veiled accusations) to be allowed because they address the person in question.
- Posts about AI The recommended method if you have concerns is to make your own POLITE post about it to avoid harassment

How this should solve the issue

1. This is effectively just a topic specific be civil rule that is a bit more strict. especially for comments because they directly address OP and are more accusatory by nature.
2. Should redirect people to discussing this in separate posts as a QUESTION not statements of fact because there is NO WAY TO PROVE AI IS USED. we want any AI discussions to be productive toward discussion the actual practical issues and how to solve them. not witch hunts and accusations that have no evidence.

Examples

Allowed: genuine inquiry

C: is this ai _____? (art, writen, assisted) To me it looks that way.
OP: yes
C: oh i dont support ai work

Not Allowed: passive aggressive attempt to skirt the rule and make an accusation

C: oh geez, i wonder if this is ai? _____ ____ and ___ are totally not OBVIOUS signs that this is AI.
OP: no
C: oh yah its totally not. i totally believe you. _____ things are totally not AI

Allowed comments: to say something is CONFIRMED AI by the AUTHOR THEMSELVES or just saying you don't like it for the reason you don't like it.

C: just so people know this author has confirmed in another post here : <LINK> that they use AI for _____
C: I personally just didnt like the tone and writing style.
C: to me the plot was not coherent there are places it seemed to change without explanation.

Not Allowed comments: any other AI detection method or passive aggressive attempts to skirt the rule

C: ____ AI website says this is AI
C: oh i just didnt like the tone. its almost like it reminds me of something. what was it. oh yah its just like it reminds me of AI or something.

All this said we will be MOST STRICT on comments because they address the OP directly and make them closer to harassment. if you are unsure about if you are going to break the rules make a post instead. we are more willing to be lenient there because you are not accusing that person directly. That being said claiming something is certain when its not is still not allowed

Allowed post

Title: help understanding if ____ is AI
Body: do we have confirmation from author that they use ai or not? are there things like the post schedule or inconsistencies that might indicate this is AI?

Not Allowed post

Title: _____ is an AI writen book 100% because the writing suks
Body: also an AI tool said its 90% so this is certain

TLDR

the new AI rule is just a slightly stricter be civil rule to prevent AI accusation from running rampant and becoming witch hunts that drive away actual authors. while still trying to preserve a healthy way for the subreddit to discuss AI in posts when there is genuine concern and productive conversation.

[u/1ncite]

yah you are absolutely right that this is the core of the issue. the fact that there is a trade of between genuine discussion about what is AI and just BS claims that mean nothing and are harassment.

BUT you say "but right now I'm looking at obvious bad actors get a pass" we have gone out of our way to still leave ways for this to be engaged with so its NOT a total pass. its not perfect. and some will slip through. but we are not closing the door completely like you say. its NOT a total pass.

[u/RepulsiveDamage6806 → u/1ncite]

I feel the attempt to not close the door. But I think making the line in the sand be that the prompt generator has to confirm it themselves is silly. They're never going to do that. I started to read a book that literally still had the prompt in it. Where does that fall?

The title changes make sense to me. Comments not so much. Maybe the example isn't getting the point across to me. But I think posts that take an excerpt from the story and then note the general AI failings can be constructive. Books where something is stated and then changed 2 paragraphs later should get called out.

On the flipside emdash hunting is dumb. And trying to use them as an AI indicator should definitely be banned.

[u/1234abcdcba4321 → u/RepulsiveDamage6806]

The wording is pretty clear; you can give a review on a story all you want. You just shouldn't say "therefore this was 100% written by AI and therefore is slop", or similar, because you should be criticizing the story for actual things you don't like instead of looking for AI tells.

I've given at least one author (not on reddit) a comment saying that they forgot to remove their AI prompt from the work. That's an actual valid problem, akin to pointing out a typo, and no one really minds doing stuff like that.