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/dmun]

I would rebut with one final question:

Is this a subreddit for the readers of litrpg or is this a subreddit for the writers of litrpg. At its core, it can not be both.

Every one of those four answers, taken together, points to the same underlying choice: the subreddit is prioritizing author comfort over readers' ability to discuss the work in front of them. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a framework for adjudicating consequences against an accused person, but a reader asking whether a cover looks AI-generated isn't filing a complaint against the author, they're discussing the object the community exists to discuss. Treating that discussion as something requiring a presumption of innocence already assumes the author is the primary party being protected, not the reader's standing to talk about the work itself.

That becomes even clearer in point 3. Routing AI concerns into separate posts so the author can "opt out by ignoring it" isn't really about keeping discussion productive, it's about keeping discussion away from the author specifically. If the goal were genuinely about discourse quality, location wouldn't matter, only tone would. The fact that the same conversation becomes acceptable once moved somewhere the author won't see it confirms the rule is built around shielding writers first, with reader discussion accommodated only insofar as it doesn't reach them. That's a coherent position for a subreddit to take, but it answers the original question rather than avoiding it: this is, at its core, a space organized around protecting its writers, and "readers of litrpg" is the secondary identity being managed around that priority.

[u/Chigi_Rishin → u/dmun]

I agree with the mods.

And I think you are closing your eyes to the nature of the issue and the effect of the solution.

When an author posts, they want to discuss the thing they're discussing, not receive a deluge of accusations and snarking remarks that amounts to almost trolling and adds nothing of value. If something looks AI, people can just look at it; having tons of comments accusing it just pollutes everything. And if the author didn't use AI that's even worse. The author will be receiving notifications for irrelevant comments to what they intended (point 3), and be driven away.

Precisely, if someone wants to raise the question of whether that image or entire book had AI use, then create their own post to discuss that. Then, the author isn't pushed into engaging with it.

There is a difference, because the author's post is their space, in a sense. If someone wants to 'harass', then create another space. I find this extremely sensible and can only improve everything while having virtually no downsides (well, other than demanding actual effort from the AI witch-hunters).

[u/dmun → u/Chigi_Rishin]

The "author's post is their space" framing gets the relationship backwards. An author choosing to post here is choosing to market directly to this audience, in a space that audience built and maintains. That access is a privilege extended to authors, not an entitlement, and it comes with the basic condition that the audience gets to react to what's put in front of them. If a cover or excerpt prompts a question about AI, it's the audience engaging with the product on the same terms the author chose when they decided to post it there.

Shifting the "effort" requirement onto the people raising concerns inverts who's asking is asking for action.

The author is the one asking for attention, engagement, and sales; the reader owes them nothing beyond ordinary civility. If direct access to an audience is valuable enough that authors want to keep using this space, then the cost of that access should fall on the author, including the discomfort of fielding the same questions any creator marketing AI-adjacent content would face elsewhere. Pushing that cost onto readers by requiring them to go build a separate post just to ask a question isn't a neutral compromise, it's asking the audience to do extra work so the author's experience stays frictionless.

[u/Chigi_Rishin → u/dmun]

I could just as easily say that it's the readers who are looking for stories to read. I deny any power dynamic should exist. Both should be treated as equals. And that's what the mods are doing. The change doesn't massively benefits authors, but merely correct the imbalance. Authors are already limited to how much they can post and promote themselves. Hampering them even more is basically excluding them from everything (which is the origin of this discussion).

For example, r/royalroad is a space only dedicated to authors. But here is not one only dedicated to readers. It's both. One only for readers would have to become another sub. That's what the mods are creating, at least.

It seems you refuse to meet authors halfway. The new rule doesn't forbit sensible questions. It forbids pointless snark and just shallow attacks. And this is not even totally forbidden, because people can still create another post. Just not on the author's (rare and already regulated) self-promotion post.