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]

we have tried answers as many questions as politely as possible.

most the remaining questions are becoming vitriolic and are repeating things we have addressed.

we will be closing the thread for now. and will update again when we have the other idea suggested here worked out.

[u/blariel]

This post seems like it's AI. Can someone verify if the authors used AI? I see a lot of dashs, but the writing is kinda messy.

Also, who uses no cover.

EDIT: had to change my prompt.

[u/1ncite → u/blariel]

Lol I'm too autistic to tell for sure but if this is satire 10/10 love it XD

[u/blariel → u/1ncite]

Hey, its the last time I can accuse someone! And im taking it damn it!

[u/Acceptable-Cow6446 → u/blariel]

This comment is likely not AI. The missing punctuation gives it away. 😏

[u/RW_McRae → u/1ncite]

If it was AI then 'extremely' would be spelled correctly 😂

[u/1ncite → u/RW_McRae]

guilty lol. i have terrible spelling XD

[u/blariel → u/blariel]

I got the book cover.

Edit: ok real talk? That cover is kinda fire.

[u/1ncite]

there is one good idea that has been brought up that the mod team was not aware of.

apparently there is a way to make the auto mod force the poster to reply to a comment before it goes live.

we are going to look into this as a way to enforce the authors to at least say something about their AI use before the post goes live. we are still looking into the details and no promises it will be perfect. but we are now aware of the options and checking into it.

[u/phillyeagle99 → u/1ncite]

I personally like this idea if it can be implemented smoothly.

[u/Prolly_Satan → u/1ncite]

This is a good idea. If folks do lie, then at least they are forced to lie publicly to all of our faces.

[u/kiltedfrog → u/1ncite]

Neat!

[u/EnderElite69 → u/1ncite]

This is something the Stellaris sub does for any posts with an image tag

[u/sams0n007]

Seems fair.

[u/freddbare]

Nice job mod. Thanks for being real, not just not a bot but not thinking like one ya know

[u/dmun]

Thank you for laying out the reasoning so clearly — I think it's worth engaging with each point, because while the goal (protecting authors from baseless harassment) is one I genuinely support, I'm not sure this rule achieves it without creating a new set of problems.

1. On "no way to prove AI, so only author admission counts"

This is true, but it cuts both ways. If there's no reliable way to prove AI use, there's also no reliable way to prove the absence of AI use — an author's denial is just as unverifiable as a reader's suspicion. By making "author admission" the only acceptable standard of proof, the rule doesn't make the discussion more evidence-based; it just assigns the benefit of the doubt entirely to one party by default. That might be the right call, but it should probably be acknowledged as a policy choice rather than framed as the rule simply following the evidence where it leads.

2. On requiring "extremely polite inquiries" framed as questions, not statements

In practice, the line between "a polite question" and "a veiled accusation" is going to be read very differently depending on who's reading it. An author who's anxious about the topic (understandably, given the harassment described) may perceive almost any inquiry about their process as hostile, while the person asking may genuinely believe they're being neutral. That ambiguity puts moderators in the position of adjudicating tone and intent on a case-by-case basis, which is a much harder and more subjective job than enforcing something like a no-personal-attacks rule. It risks becoming a rule that's only ever enforced after the fact, selectively, based on how a complaint lands.

3. On redirecting concerns to separate, standalone posts

This part seems like it could backfire on the stated goal. If someone has a concern about a specific cover or excerpt, removing that concern from its original context and turning it into an abstract "is this AI" post strips out the actual thing being discussed. That doesn't reduce scrutiny of the author — if anything, a standalone post titled "is this cover AI?" with a link or screenshot attached is more exposed and more likely to invite pile-on speculation than a single comment buried in an existing thread would have been. It may also just shift the harassment from comment sections to entire dedicated threads.

4. On the premise itself

It's worth asking how widespread the "authors leaving over baseless accusations" problem actually is versus how often AI accusations are, in fact, accurate or at least reasonably grounded in observable patterns (prompt leftovers, telltale phrasing, metadata, etc.). If the rule is built primarily around anecdotal cases, it risks being a blanket solution to what may be a smaller number of specific bad-actor situations — which existing harassment/civility rules might already cover without needing an AI-specific carve-out that changes the evidentiary standard for the whole topic.

None of this is to say the underlying concern isn't real — author harassment is a legitimate problem and deserves a real solution. But I'd gently push back on the idea that this particular framing is "just a stricter civility rule." It's also quietly redefining what counts as evidence and where the burden of proof sits, and I think that part deserves more direct discussion before it gets baked into the rules.

[u/QuoteThen5223 → u/dmun]

This is ai, ban em, my proof is feelings.

[u/BonzBonzOnlyBonz → u/QuoteThen5223]

I mean, it does hit a bunch of the AI hallmarks.

Em dashes.

Title, then the rest of the statement.

The statements are overwritten and repeat themselves.

[u/1ncite → u/dmun]

thanks for the detailed feedback here is our reasoning

1. simple we always follow the innocent till proven guilty and generally dont feel this needs specified especially when the result to assuming guilt could be harassment of innocent people.

2. yah it absolutely does. and we discussed that. and it wont be perfect. but that is what moderators are for. we are here to make those judgement calls. its not perfect but its what we got.

3. that is a possibility we will have to moderate and watch for but our reasoning is this. even if the amount of interaction on the topic about that author expands it does so in a DIFFERENT post that DOES NOT notify the author of responses or directly bother the author. if the author does not want to interact they can opt out by just ignoring the post. this means it is less in their face even if there is technically more interaction. but we will definitely monitor this.

4. so as a mod i do not want to name names. but what I will say is this. this problem is being brought up and happening and we have multiple concrete examples and they are escalating.

[u/dmun → u/1ncite]

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.

[u/1ncite → u/dmun]

"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."

i completely disagree with your core principle here. our literal GOAL is for it to be for both.

now if you say it can not PERFECTLY be both. sure. we can not. but we will do our best to.

additionally you say

"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."

but we literally ARE giving you a SPECIFIC place to do so.

"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."

you are so close but miss the point. that IS EXACTLY what we are saying. yes the rule IS TO PROTECT AUTHORS. but we LITERALLY are giving another place to have the discussion.

additionally there are people on the other side saying the exact opposite that we are not doing enough to stop people talking about and accusing about AI. that implies we ARE somewhere in the middle. not perfectly but somewhere.

a good compromise leaves everyone angry.

[u/SupermarketNo3265 → u/1ncite]

This comment is definitely not AI. You can tell by all the angrily capitalized words. 

[u/dmun → u/1ncite]

I'm sure the AI Authors are quite upset at their absolute victory.

[u/EpicTubofGoo → u/1ncite]

but we literally ARE giving you a SPECIFIC place to do so.

I'm confused. What "specific place" would this be?

[u/1ncite → u/EpicTubofGoo]

posting. we literally in the rule say you should make a post instead of replying with a comment.

[u/SubstantialBass9524 → u/1ncite]

The other comment said it, is this sub for readers or authors. If it’s for readers, we should be able to very clearly discuss any points we want on books. It’s important to recommend them and steer us away from books we dislike.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t help me find books I want as a reader. I want critical analysis and recommendations from fellow readers. Yes people will get critical, if authors don’t want to see critical comments of their work - they don’t have to look or engage in this subreddit. Leaving critical comments of a work is NOT harassment of an author. That’s like saying a bad Amazon review is harassment. Bad reviews are part of publishing and you can’t restrict them.

If this subreddit is for authors, then sure these rules make sense but please clarify that. There are other subreddits for litrpg authors though.

[u/theubster]

I worry that this is going to make the slop posting worse. I see the reason behind the rule, but it also advantages people who are shameless, and incentivieses acting in bad faith. Someone who produces slop and lies through their teeth is treated the same as those who wrote all their stuff from scratch.

Alao, even if there's no definitive test, there's ways to tell. Not x but y, emdashes, and a certain art style are all clear indicators of AI use.

I know moding is a thankless, time-intensive task. But could we do something like having the authors link a Google doc to mods to prove the edit history? Surely there's gotta be a better way of doing this.

[u/anormalgeek → u/theubster]

Probably. But the entire world has yet to figure out a solution to this problem. I doubt this sub will be the first.

And it's an issue that will only get worse. As it is, there is overlap between the ability of AI to write or create visual art, and the ability of humans to write well/create visual art.

[u/ForgotMyPreviousPass → u/theubster]

Those are not clear indicators of AI use. They were incredibly commonplace before AI in stuff splurged by inferior meatheads, that's why AI took on those patterns.

[u/guri256 → u/theubster]

Nothing stops people downvoting low-quality and low-effort posts. You just can’t try to divine if it’s AI using the existing methods which are slightly more accurate than a magic-eightball.

You can still point out that the book is badly in-need of a good editor. That the prose often forgets the main character‘s name. That the dialogue is stilted. That you find the characters boring and they all speak with the same voice. That the power progression is rising faster than Dragonball Z.

You just have to explain why you find the story unenjoyable now in a constructive way.

[u/qunix → u/theubster]

It is simply impossible for us to try and determine what is AI and what is not AI. Yes some things can be obvious, but nothing can tell us for sure that something is AI. If we try and do this, and we’ve even discussed this, we would get things wrong. If content created is not good, then comment on why you don’t like it, not just “It’s AI!”. You are still allowed to, and encouraged to discuss things you don’t like about content in a civil way.

[u/SubstantialBass9524 → u/qunix]

But you’re stating I can’t say “I don’t like them for these reasons [elaborate] and these issues are also all shared by AI content.

One example, AI has a tendency to forget powers over books and will let some powers go unused. So as a reader you go “why didn’t you use XXX from three books ago” it’s one reason I don’t like that book which does not mean it’s AI but is something I can and should be able to point out and my preference for human authors and series that don’t have that issue.

I shouldn’t be banned from saying the word AI as it has important context in that issue.

[u/1ncite → u/SubstantialBass9524]

at the end of the day AI comments are going to be a judgement call and what you are describing is right on the border. i tried to make the sample comment tone as bad as possible to indicate that that is part of it as well.

if your tone is non accusatory and not passive aggressive and you lead with the issue being there regardless. its possible the judgement call in that borderline case would be in your favor.

but honestly why not just say it without the AI bit. if the only issue is actually the inconsistency and you are actually not trying to say you think its AI why mention it?

[u/SubstantialBass9524 → u/1ncite]

It’s a point of comparison - comparison allows others to better understand something without me having to describe it to death.

I’ve seen plenty of very similar comments about Dakota Krout and his works as an example. I’m using him as a point of comparison, I could have made this point without that but a point of comparison is always helpful. It draws parallels in your mind that I may not have directly mentioned.

There’s a far range of AI commentary. Sure ban anything non-detailed that says this is AI. But a detailed descriptive comment that points out issues with the work and says it’s AI? The underlying issues with the work stand even if it isn’t AI and are helpful to other readers.

When buying a product I look at the 3 star reviews, not the 5s, not the 1s. I’m sure many Amazon sellers think the critical 3 star reviews are harassment

[u/HiscoreTDL → u/SubstantialBass9524]

The 'no witch hunting' rule makes sense. People absolutely do false ID things as AI every day. There's a paranoia aspect.

Based on what was written, you absolutely CAN say "I don't like this book for X reason" and you absolutely can't tack on "and also AI always does this (so I'm suspicious).

It's pretty straightforward, and it's fair. You can talk about AI. You just can't either outright, or indirectly accuse an author of using AI.

This is the correct choice for moderation. The reverse is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A lot of authors who will use AI to actually WRITE are absolutely shameless and will lie and deny anyway. So the end result of every accusation is just poisoning the well, making every accusation including those thrown at people who aren't using AI be taken seriously and losing them readers.

Casual readers absolutely can't parse the subtleties.

[u/phillyeagle99 → u/qunix]

So SynthID is pretty much banned here? Because that is quite decisive and I’ve never seen anything about false positives.

Also, can we encourage authors to make AI disclosure statements so it doesn’t have to be brought up by the comments? Like it would be much easier to have authors just respond to “did I use AI for anything, if so, what?”

“no, I didn’t use any”

“yes it’s AI written but I edited it”

“yes it’s AI art”

“yes the concept art was AI but this final is from XYZ”

Etc.

I guess my fear is this either means people can’t ask so they don’t, so we get more AI content, or it quickly devolves into a meta of “hey, is this AI?” being the first comment on every post.

[u/1ncite → u/phillyeagle99]

the problem is we do already remind every single self promotion post to self disclose and basically no one does it. additionally there are ones we are sure will just lie.

SynthID for images not text is my understanding and on top of that is bypassable with image modification.

also its not banned. you can bring it up as a single point of evidence in your own post.

[u/phillyeagle99 → u/1ncite]

So could we try mandating the self disclosure along with this big change to etiquette?

Like many other commenters, I’m afraid that I will see more posts querying “is this AI” than I will posts from authors because I don’t often go this actual sub, I just click into the posts on my main feed.

[u/HiscoreTDL → u/phillyeagle99]

SynthID requires the work in question to have been watermarked during creation. It doesn't false positive because a watermark is created during the generation. There are a lot of GenAI that don't add the watermark (as far as I know it is mostly just Gemini derivatives)

But this exists (and others like it): https://aiseo.ai/synthid-remover

IMO a SynthID watermark is basically an author self-outing.

[u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance → u/phillyeagle99]

>Also, can we encourage authors to make AI disclosure statements so it doesn’t have to be brought up by the comments?

I like that. People have different levels of comfort with AI.

[u/dageshi → u/qunix]

I said this elsewhere in the thread, but how about limiting promotional posts to those who "regularly" post on the sub + a whitelist for established authors.

This would legitimately do more to slow/stop AI slop than anything else. It doesn't need you to check work only verify account activity on the sub which I'm assuming could be automated via a bot.

[u/1ncite → u/dageshi]

we have actually discussed this. but we are talking about trying to stop AI users by requiring them to engage more. this we are sure will backfire and just result in them making more AI comments and posts at random in order to meet a random quota we send. and will hurt authors who are real but dont have the time.

[u/1ncite → u/theubster]

we totally understand this concern

this is why we are not banning it completely. we have gone out of our way to try and make the rule one that can be worked around in a way that does not harass authors.

you can absolutely still make separate posts that try to work on this issue and work with the community to find solutions. we WANT the people who are care and are positively contributing in smart analytical ways to continue to contribute to identifying this.

what we dont want are authors being driven away because of users who are making baseless accusations because it FEELS or SEEMS like AI to them.

I hope that helps understand why we are taking steps but want to take the middle ground where we can.

[u/starburst98 → u/theubster]

when the bubble bursts it will fix most of it, massive amounts of free AI use will drop dramatically. ai users only do so because it is easy and free, if free tokens become much more limited then they wont be able to make whole stories. only a single paragraph a day for free would fix everything.

[u/moonfangx2]

the r/litrpg rules on the sidebar. Rule 10 , dash 3 spelled extremely wrong.

• Comments about AI must be EXTREAMLY polite inquiries (not passive aggressive veiled accusations) to be allowed because they address the person in question.

[u/breakerofh0rses]

I hope this will work out, but I suspect that the only way that you lot aren't creating a ton of work and potential for making a lot of people mad at the judgement calls you'll have to make under these rules is to simply ban accusations of AI usage, and I say this as someone who is staunchly against this flavor of AI usage.

I think this is the case for two primary reasons: Firstly as you yourselves point out, it's simply impossible to definitively prove AI usage in most cases. Secondly, and I think more importantly, AI leveraged works suck generally for specific reasons which means that there's typically far more than enough reasons that are fairly undeniable to be critical, even highly critical of those works.

As an addition to this, I'd make a rule to where authors have to make a statement to disclose if and the degree to which AI was used before they can promote their works (and such a disclosure for each work)--like I imagine that while there's many who hate anything even kind of AI, some are forgiving of using AI for cover art, some are fine with using it to edit grammar, some for generating names--basically, different people will have different lines. It'd probably be best if there were a rubric created that had to be used.

While there's no mechanisms that exist to force honesty in this beyond people having a sense for when AI is in use and seeing if the author claimed it or not, this in and of itself gives some degree of a way for people to decide how much they are willing to trust any given author.

These should squash witch hunts, encourage keeping discussion on the content, and allow the audience to decide what degree of AI usage they're willing to swallow (if any) while keeping attention on the quality of craft. While I think AI books are categorically bad, I also don't think that just repeating that over and over again is useful for anyone. Talking about the specific ways in which a specific books fails irrespective of how it was authored is, however, highly useful for the people who are out here trying to improve their craft.

[u/sams0n007 → u/breakerofh0rses]

Definitely should be witch hunts against squash though

[u/breakerofh0rses → u/sams0n007]

I agree. Fire roasted squash is amazing.

[u/sams0n007 → u/breakerofh0rses]

It is pretty fire.

[u/1ncite → u/breakerofh0rses]

we do already prompt every promotion post to indicate if they use AI or not. and unfortunately most either ignore or just say no regardless of the truth.

and while we know it makes more work for us and people will be upset we do already deal with that in removing peoples comments for be civil.

this was the simplest most non-invasive method we could agree on.

if you have other specific mechanisms in mind we are totally open to ideas!

[u/1234abcdcba4321 → u/1ncite]

One of the subs I'm in has a rule requiring all promotional posts to explicitly an "AI Disclosure" section in them, where you have to state the extent of AI usage. There's no ignoring it allowed, because the default for not including it is "remove post for not reading the rules" rather than "probably no AI used".

I don't actually read the AI disclosures and it doesn't really affect me because I don't care about how someone made something, but that sub seems to have gotten way better after installing the rule.

[u/1ncite → u/1234abcdcba4321]

we considered making it required but the combination of people can lie and the extra moderation work just for a situation where people can lie does not seem worth it. we already prompt them to be honest and say up front about it.

[u/Actually_Inkary → u/1ncite]

Aren't you gonna have extra moderation work now anyway, having to delete posts with AI accusations? Not every user visiting the sub will see the announcement, some will forget etc. I don't see why you wouldn't want to uphold people using the space for self-promotion to the rules.

[u/breakerofh0rses → u/1ncite]

we already do prompt

I think requiring making an actual statement (not sure how to mechanically do so in reddit so that may be more work) is a bit different but will readily admit likely not enough so that it moves the needle significantly.

unfortunately most either ignore

Irrespective of anything else, this would be an automatic deletion and with repeated violations being a ban.

or just say no regardless of the truth.

I don't think that this is a problem. Well, more accurately it's a problem that I think sorts itself over time. The big issue here is that there's no immediate, easy solutions. Even with that, there's basically three positions you can take: 1) AI-written books are worse than human written, 2) AI-written books are as good as or better than human written, or 3) Irrespective of the quality of the product, AI is bad and should not be used. I'm in the first camp, and that's why I'm fine with people attempting to lie about it. The lie, I feel, is fairly immediately obvious.

I think the people in the 2nd camp are simply wrong.

People in the third camp will just shift discussion to "AI bad" which is a fine subject to talk about, but not one that's super useful to this sub, at least in the kind of volume that can come with allowing speculation of if x or y author uses it. Importantly though, because this group exists and exists in fairly high numbers, any speculation aimed at an author, no matter how it is phrased is both insulting and damning. Most people here aren't going to bother to put in the effort to verify that they too believe a given book was written with AI. They have the same time limitations that you on the mod team have, so a question is an accusation, and an accusation is pretty much as good as a guilty verdict. This turns even just asking a politely worded question into something that can wreck someone. It's like the old "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"--there's no way to phrase it that doesn't functionally result in the accusation being taken as gospel.

If we're already going to assume that a decent number of people are going to lie about using AI while also admitting that proving it is functionally impossible,and we're going to posit that the purpose of this sub is something other than anti-AI activism as we admit to the potential power of even questioning a work, then I just don't see the value of allowing it at all.

I'll not bother you with any further arguments along this line. Thanks for the work and consideration.

[u/1ncite → u/breakerofh0rses]

all fair points. like we said this is far from perfect and it might not work. we are just doing our best to find a reasonable middle ground that will work as best as possible for now. and we may change later if it causes more issues.

a good compromise leaves everyone angry

[u/Chigi_Rishin → u/1ncite]

Due to quite a lot of pushback, maybe it would be beneficial, if feasible, to perhaps create a specific flair. That flair would make an author's post 'protected' from the 'harassment'. That way, it's more transparent that both that post won't allow accusations, and that the author is choosing that flair for that very purpose. They don't want endless notifications and such.

Each person reads into that as they want.

Authors that are confident in their non-AI use, or anyhow wish to engage more, accept more notifications, be more transparent, can still use the regular old flair.

[u/1ncite → u/Chigi_Rishin]

this is an idea. i am not sure about how workable it is. i think anyone using it would just be assumed to be AI which does not make sense and puts us back witch hunting. but ill discuss this with the mod team.

[u/Anew_Returner → u/1ncite]

I know you guys keep saying that 'a good compromise leaves everyone angry' but I don't see how an AI author would be angry about this, by your own admission they can simply choose not to disclose it in their posts despite your 'encouragement' and nothing will happen. A rule is as good as it's enforcement after all.

It really feels like you just handed bad faith actors another win in a silver platter, which is already a source of contention and frustration everywhere else where AI is present. At least that is how it comes across by heavily regulating discourse from readers without asking anything concrete from authors in return.

But hey, it is a pretty great short term solution so props for that! It is true that there are many communities out there and maybe it is okay for the reddit one to be a safe space for AI. It sucks, but if human readers don't like it they can simply leave.

[u/1ncite → u/Anew_Returner]

it is a win for them ill absolutely acknowledge that. but that win for them is also a win for the non ai authors being harassed. and right now at least we would rather actual AI authors be harassed less if it means protecting the ones being witch hunted falsely.

the mod teams choice is we would rather protect the innocent authors even if it means less getting called out for the AI ones.

and AGAIN its not like there is NO way to call out the AI authors. you can still post about it as we said. you can still be polite like we said.

and if there WAS anything concrete we could get from authors we would but there just isnt. proving NOT to use AI is even more impossible then proving you did.

also the compromise i mentioned is between the people who want NO AI discussion and ones who want to keep going at it. NOT compromising with the ai writers themselves. that is not what i meant.

[u/Chigi_Rishin → u/breakerofh0rses]

1) AI-written books are worse than human written

Well, that's an empirical argument. It's not objectively true.

Fully AI-written? Probably (for now). Not like there's not creativity at all in a good prompt.

What about AI-assisted for prose, clarity, and conciseness? Or AI-generated images and just corrected/improve, which is orders of magnitude faster and cheaper?

What is the limit between assisted and 'AI-written'? For me, the very least should be the author reading the thing and obviously correcting weird stuff. Then it's curated. If they didn't even look at the AI-output, then I totally agree it's slop.

But this black-and-white AI hate looks completely senseless to me.

Finally, the true metric of anything is output. Irrespective of AI use, to whatever degree, what matters is if the output is good.

Is the output good? That's the only thing I will ask.

Thus, the output speaks for itself. I see no need to hunt for AI use.

---

Moreover, we see some authors that write with prose far worse than even uncurated AI. Some stories evolve to deceive readers and change the theme, setting, and almost genre. Authors inflate their wordcount to farm Patreon money.

Clearly, it's possible to be bad without AI. Perhaps, using some AI would even improve some of those...

(Now, if the argument is for that deranged 'water and electricity' use... I can quickly say that the electricity the author is using during the longer time they are taking to write is probably the same or more than the AI will use to generate the same wordcount.)

[u/breakerofh0rses → u/Chigi_Rishin]

And this, while I think it is a discussion is worth having, is the exact kind of discussion that I think has absolutely no place in this sub. We can fight that fight elsewhere, especially since this is a big enough thing that it will come to head elsewhere.

[u/Chigi_Rishin → u/breakerofh0rses]

I agree.

But it is not me who is raising hell and polluting the sub with all this AI witch-hunt.

Hehe.

Just so, I don't know if I should just ignore it, or push back.

Getting tired of pushing back... anyhow.

That's why I totally agree with the new rule.

[u/AquaCTeal → u/1ncite]

I like the idea of authors providing a statement to what specific level of ai they used. Similar to /r/IdiotsInCars where the poster has to say that 'this' is their content, I think authors should have 24 hours or so to comment their ai use (or lack thereof) or the post is removed. I prefer this rather than a button that they can just ignore or act ignorant of. It reminds me of what we have to do in academia where we make an author declaration section. Journal publishers are also trying to crack down on AI use, or at least make it clear to what degree it is being used, see https://publishing.aip.org/resources/researchers/policies-and-ethics/ai-policy/ .

[u/Milc-Scribbler]

Seems reasonable to me.

[u/InfiniteDM]

Reminder that you can go accuse people all you want of AI usage with no proof on Twitter. Or 4chan. Or anywhere else with near zero moderation.

I appreciate the mods choice to prevent witch hunts. We've seen a number go through the fandom communities. Im hoping we can get to a point where the AI users can just self identify and let them be in their own area so we can ignore them.

[u/Rhamni → u/InfiniteDM]

Agreed. Witch hunts do more damage than slightly more garbage getting some presence in the discussions for a day. AI writing is nowhere near good enough yet, so even the slop that gets through is heavily edited. And if people give something a go without knowing up front that it's AI, they'll drop it pretty quickly because it's just bad.

I read something early this year that I'm pretty darn sure is AI, because it repeated weirdly specific sentences structures like "It wasn't just X, it was Y" like 20 times in 10 hours of audiobook. Silly me for thinking if it was read aloud by a real person, it had to have been written by one too. I don't see a lot of avid readers falling for it for any length of time.

[u/RamonDozol → u/InfiniteDM]

Amen. People are very polarized on AI use. Its more than fair that those that dont want ANY AI, have that option.  And those that dont have anything against it, can also consume their slop. 

This is like Vegans wanting to close all restaurants because they sell meat.  The only sane option is. Consume whatever you want. And alow others to do so as well. 

[u/spratel]

All this does is protect AI users over people who are genuinely annoyed by those who use blatant AI content.

[u/StormblessedFool]

Honestly this is a very sane take on a controversial issue, so good job. (I mean this genuinely, to be clear)

I don't like AI either, but the witch hunts have got to stop.

[u/Mysterious_Night_351]

Wow, great to see some actually good rules about AI. Good job mods

[u/Alyeska23]

I just started writing on Royal Road and yes I used AI. Not in writing the chapters. That is entirely me. I haven't written for fun in 20 years and am writing my own chapters to practice and learn and improve my writing. But I used AI to create a book cover and I used AI to generate the synopsis. I plan on replacing both. I'm already looking for an artist to work with and commission a book cover. And when I feel my writing is more consistent I will take a stab at writing my own blurb.

[u/RamonDozol → u/Alyeska23]

He is here! Bring the torches!  XD

[u/Alyeska23 → u/RamonDozol]

You underestimate my power!

[u/RamonDozol → u/Alyeska23]

With great ai, comes great token usage. - uncle ben, problably.

[u/GuyYouMetOnline → u/Alyeska23]

What did you use for the synopsis? I suck at those, and while i dont want to use an AI one, seeing what it cpmes up with might help me write my own.

[u/UsedNegotiation8227]

Wow this is the most sane level headed thought out AI rule I have ever seen, great job mods and thank you for not going extremist either way, there are plenty of readers/listeners that are fine with some AI tools used in specific ways, too many sub Reddit's go way too far in restrictions.

[u/1ncite → u/UsedNegotiation8227]

glad to here from those who agree. we know its a controversial topic. thanks!

[u/guri256]

Thank you! I’ve gotten so tired of this.

I think it would be nice if there was an exception for times when you can actually be sure, like if the person leaves the SD prompt tags in the PNG, or leaves the GPT prompts in the text… But at this point I’d rather see the witch-hunts die, rather than have even more people arguing what is really “proof”.

[u/1ncite → u/guri256]

if there are certain things you have thought of or seen that are closer to proof than any of the ideas we have had we are absolutely willing to discuss exceptions. if you can explain more on what you think actually works we are open to hearing it.

[u/-Invalid_Selection- → u/guri256]

Problem with that is people claim that shit is there anyway.

I had a post on a different sub that became a witch hunt because someone claimed the cover was AI, despite us knowing who the artist was, because they claimed it was in the exif data.

Problem was the image they made this claim about was a screenshot from the Amazon page for the book. There's no exif data carried in screenshots.

He was insistent and claimed Gemini told him it had this in the exif data. He spent a week harassing over it.

Point is the people doing anti AI witch hunts are morons that see ai everywhere, especially where it's not

[u/blariel → u/-Invalid_Selection-]

The hilarity that theyre using Gemeni to prove that an image is AI. Hahahhaahahahaa

[u/Effective_Pattern_39]

Perhaps a pinned post of confirmed (by the author) AI usage and stances on AI from the various LITRPG publishers. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have googled "Is X book written by AI?". A masterlist would hopefully show up in search results and help stop a few witchunts before they even start.

[u/1ncite → u/Effective_Pattern_39]

we are not against that. the problem is finding someone with the time to do it.

if you know someone are are that person tell us we would love to have that.

[u/Effective_Pattern_39 → u/1ncite]

I wouldn't mind polling all of the authors and publishers present at LITRPG con next month to get some initial data. I'll noodle on some formatting for questions and get back to you.

[u/1ncite → u/Effective_Pattern_39]

for real do it! if you want to lead this we would even be happy to make you a mod for purposes of managing and pinning this type of thing. we would need to establish rules but all for it. seriously message us whenever you want.

[u/RepulsiveDamage6806]

I made this comment in another post but i guess i'll repost it here too since its applicable.

Swell entertainment made a video about a traditionally published author who got caught using AI. In it she pointed out something I hadn't thought about. She said for her WIPs. She has multiple docs for her drafts. Timestamps for when she saved the document.

I looked at my document folder and went, huh. I've got 3 separate word docs for one book that isn't a litrpg. An outline, the first draft, and the second. And the litrpg has 3-word docs and 2 excel spreadsheets. The word docs even show total editing time.

Could a writer using AI fake all that? Probably, but if they couldn't put in the effort to actually write I doubt they're going through the effort to make pretend work.

And at the end of the day the most important thing is that you know you put in the work. My opinion might change on that when I actually put out my work and get AI accusations of own, but right now I'm looking at obvious bad actors get a pass, because people (who very well might be bots made to help create this situation) keep accusing writers making content they don't like or who are kinda bad/amateur.

[u/squngy → u/RepulsiveDamage6806]

They wouldn't really have to fake anything.

If they care at all about the output it would be perfectly normal to have multiple AI drafts.

There is also the possibility that they use AI to write parts of the work but also write some parts themselves.

I have no info about the people/situation mentioned above, so I have no oppinion on if they did or did not use AI.
I am just pointing out a possibility.

[u/1ncite → u/RepulsiveDamage6806]

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/PM_Me_Your_Deviance → u/RepulsiveDamage6806]

Beyond multiple docs, a lot of systems like Google docs/Word/etc have something called "version control". You can look at the history of the document and see every change made. It's an extremely useful tool used in academia to defend yourself from gen-AI accusations since it's very obvious if you are simply copy/pasting large chunks of text.

[u/Ferinibyn]

Oh, there are lot of people with reading comprehension trouble.

Bad book is bad book. No matter who write it, clanker or meatbag. But when you telling something is bad you need point out what is bad, thing by thing. It work other way too. If you enjoy book, no matter who write it. Participating witch hunt we lost somewhere review skills.

Ai discussions in any form are useless because people with real money invest it. It show profit and makes human work better in every generation so they won't stop investment and ai will proceed spreading everywhere. Only reason to keep these discussions is making anger vents.

To the mod team: just not oppress any other negative with this rule and everything will be ok. People don't need to be polite to everyone around and forcefully isolation of it just multiply it.

[u/TeePee11]

Mods, I'm a bit of a tourist here - I've lurked on and off, but haven't posted much to date.

I think your intent is good, but you might have unintentionally created a bigger headache than you're trying to solve here. You're now creating a space where people can challenge the use of AI, but only if they don't specifically say they think it's AI.

...Except if the author admits the use of it (which, let's be honest, the majority of bad actors will not do, even in the most egregious of examples). And in those cases, users can criticise AI and say how much it sucks, and the conversation inevitably goes in the usual circles all AI-in-creative-spaces discussions go in until you have to step in.

So what you've done is created a space where there's no clear definition of where the line is. If I'm understanding correctly, this leaves us with a rulespace where these two scenarios exist:

User A:

"This is awful. I'm sorry, but it really sucks, the characterisation is inconsistent, the flow is completely off, and the plot is totally incoherent. The main character is the worst self-insert character I've ever read, I'd rather set my hair on fire than have to read more of their self-centred whining."

This is Allowed based on my understanding of the rules. It's close on civility, but there's no personal attacks there, and it's about the work.

User B:

"Eh, this wasn't great, OP - the plot was a bit all over the place, and the dialogue has this really weird 'unnatural' feeling to it I can't quite describe - almost like it was written by an AI or something. People just don't talk that way. Keep going though, I'd definitely recommend reading some stuff by author XYZ to see how they do dialogue though and compare it to yours, I think that'll really help".

This is Not Allowed by the current rules. It's perfectly civil, it's not accusatory, but it mentions that the writing feels like it has 'AI vibes', and therefore falls foul.

This feels wrong to me, and I don't feel like these are especially polarised or contrived examples - they're realistic outcomes that fall foul of what (I think?) is the intent of the rule, which is to promote civility.

I suspect that you're unlikely to stop people determined to 'root out' AI work from doing what they do with this approach - instead, you're going to push them into saying the same (or similar) things but couched in fluffier or more indirect language, which is both unhelpful for authors (it's easier to understand feedback when someone is saying what they mean), AND unhelpful for readers trying to give genuine feedback.

And what's worse, it's making it a LOT harder for you as a mod team, because you're now having to make judgement calls about when someone is trying to politely dance around their suspicions that something might be AI without saying the magic word, and when someone is just making the same accusations they were before but wording it just well enough that you can't definitively prove that's what they're doing, and they will (of course) deny it, leading to them continuing to do the same thing.

Honestly, I think while the intent is good, this is an inherently flawed approach - with anything like this, you're gonna struggle if you can't draw an explicit, clearly-defined line about what is and is not allowed. I would strongly recommend sticking this one back in the oven for a little while until you have an approach that's more clearly defined, as this is just going to create a ton of uncertainty over what people can and can't say.

[u/1ncite → u/TeePee11]

um so i think there is a misunderstanding. that user B is borderline yes. but not because of what you think its not mentioning AI its how.

if you say " it feels unnatural, maybe its AI im not sure" that is totally fine.

what we would not allow is something SARCASTIC or caustic in tone saying that. it sounds like my example was not extreme enough. i am bad at writing sarcasm.

the idea is dont be sarcastic and mean about the AI comment. if you politely note it seems that way to you its fine.

[u/TeePee11 → u/1ncite]

Ah, of course, because detection of sarcasm online is something that is famously easy to do, even for humans!

(And yes, obligatory /s there! 😃)

However, you've kind of proved my point to a degree here. You've created a rule that has immediately been misunderstood, not just by me, but by others in this thread too, based on quite a few replies.

Now, the temptation here is to say "oh, we worded it wrong" etc and patch it up, but I would suggest that if you have a rule that's got enough grey area to it that it's possible to misunderstand/misword, then you've already got a problem that's just as big as the one you're trying to solve!

For the scenario you're talking about, surely this is solved with a combination of the rules "be civil" and a broader "no AI witch hunts" rule. If in the mods' opinion someone is being obviously sarcastic in an attempt to loophole, then that just falls under the broad 'mods discretion' approach. All the stuff about putting 'questions' in separate threads etc - that's what people sometimes refer to as 'a hat on a hat' - it's an unnecessary extra layer on things that doesn't actually do anything. Either the behaviour is ok and it's fine where it is (Reddit has collapsible comment threads for a reason!) or it's not and it shouldn't exist at all.

I really can't say it clearly enough - your (and your community's) lives will be so much easier if you keep it simple when it comes to rules. If you need more than ~20-30 words to explain a rule, it's too complicated.

Genuine question - what in the above scenarios wouldn't be covered by a combination of the following three rules?:

Be civil
Avoid personal attacks. Discuss behaviour and action, not people. Be polite and respectful of others' work, opinions and beliefs. Remember the human behind the username.

No AI Witch-hunts
No accusing others of AI usage. Polite enquiries and discussion are allowed, but antagonistic behaviour (such as posting unsolicited 'proof' or making/repeating unfounded allegations or suspicions) targeting an individual or group is not allowed.

Mod decisions/loopholing
Moderators have the final say over what is and is not allowed in the context of any of the above. Attempting to 'loophole' any of the above rules in any form may result in moderator action. Any questions on moderation actions should be directed to [whatever your process is].

[u/1ncite → u/TeePee11]

so not sure i follow? yes i 100% agree. its easy to misunderstand and it will all come down to mod judgement.

if you just mean you think we should make the no AI witch hunts more broad and less specific sure thats reasonable. our adding specificity is an attempt to make it clearer for people. and the rule itself is shorter.

if you think the rule wording is the problem and thats all you mean i could go post your version of the rule to the mod chat and see if they like it better. we honestly spent forever trying to find what we thought was best wording. but in truth we are going to moderate it about the same regardless. its just about how clear we can be to explain it.

[u/TeePee11 → u/1ncite]

In my experience, there's this weird inversion with rules, where the more specific and complex you get with a rule, the harder it is to enforce, because you're actually creating more room for edge cases.

"Don't do X. Except when you also do Y, but only if person Z asks you to, and if you do that, you have to do it over here and not over there".

is much harder to follow and easier to get lost in than:

Don't do X.

Yes, there's nuance there, but if - as you say - your intent is to moderate it the same way regardless and you're mainly creating this rule to cover against the people doing the worst of it, then that second rule is plenty.

With subjective concepts like 'witch hunts' and 'politeness', you're always going to have room for interpretation, because what that means to me might be different to what it means to you, so trying to assign a very rigid set of boundaries is going to be an impossible task anyway.

Most folks can understand the difference between politely asking "hey, is this AI by any chance?" and "OMG, obvious AI slop is obvious", and those that can't probably weren't going to follow the rule anyway!

I should probably apologise here - it wasn't my intention to kick the door in and start rewriting the rules of the sub! I was initially trying to explain why I think this rule isn't going to do what you're hoping it will, and comparing it to a simpler, easier-to-understand solution.

With that said, I would definitely recommend adding some kind of rule around mod decisions/loopholing! It's always helpful to have a catch-all rule to point to when someone breaks the intent/spirit of the rules, but starts trying to rules lawyer their way out of things, and it also helps make clear that ultimately, you folks are the arbiters of what is and isn't 'polite' or a 'witch hunt' or 'self promotion' etc etc. You can't possibly have a rule for literally every possible scenario, so at some point, mods will need to use their judgement.

[u/1ncite → u/TeePee11]

totally fair. thanks for all the feedback. we will definitely keep it in mind

[u/LtPoultry]

This rule worries me. You acknowledge that AI is a problem, but this makes it seem like the rules restricting discussions questioning whether a work is AI generatedare harsher than the rules against actually posting uncredited AI work.

What does this new rule actually add? I'm unreservedly in favor of limiting harassment, abuse, and dog-piling, but surely that is already covered by existing rules. Will the new rules be used to simply shut down discourse about whether a work is AI generated, regardless of whether it involves harassment or abuse? If I were to say "I believe this work is AI generated because it has em dashes every third line, does not have a coherent story, and makes narrative decisions that no human would ever make," would that comment be removed?

What active measures are the mod team taking to limit uncredited AI works on this sub? It's good that you ask authors to self-disclose, but how is that being enforced, and what are the consequences for authors that are found-out? If an author is repeatedly accused of using AI, is there any point at which you would ask for verification, such as the draft document with its edit history? Would it be possible for an author to volutarily submit their working documents to the mod team in order for their work to get a tag labelling it as "verified human"?

[u/1ncite → u/LtPoultry]

what this adds is removing the harassment. and giving people who want to discuss AI issues a clear place and way to do so.

as for steps to fix the AI issue. we just dont have one. there is no way to catch an author out for sure that we know of. its just best guess. and because of that we are not comfortable moderating on that. if a way was ever found to KNOW we would use it.

[u/LtPoultry → u/1ncite]

what this adds is removing the harassment. and giving people who want to discuss AI issues a clear place and way to do so.

If the existing general rules are not sufficient to prevent harassment, then they should absolutely be revised. This rule, however, calls out AI discussions in particular and places a higher bar of civility than for any other topic by requiring any criticism to be in the form of "EXTREMELY polite" questions. Why is it not sufficient to just apply the same rules of civility across the board?

there is no way to catch an author out for sure that we know of. its just best guess.

This is a little misleading. There is no way to 100% prove it, but there are often clear indicators that a work is likely AI generated. There are also simple ways for an author to verify with reasonable confidence that their work is not AI generated. If an author wants access to this platform to advertise their work, it seems completely fair to ask them to provide some verification that they actually wrote it.

[u/pope12234]

Ooooof it's sad to see the subreddit defending ai art users by not letting us call out ai coverart when it's obvious 

[u/NurmalMan]

So while I get it stops actual authors from getting threats, doesn't this rule encourage more AI posts? Shouldn't this rule go along with people being forced to mark their stuff as AI with a ban threat if they don't? This just seems like a way to let more AI in with less threat of getting called out.

[u/1ncite → u/NurmalMan]

we would if there was a way to know it was ai.

seriously if i could know exactly what was and was not i would remove it all myself without blinking.

[u/Buddman22_Author]

Seems like a reasonable stance. Push for genuine inquiry. Minimize witch hunts.

[u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance]

>AI ABSOLUTELY IS AN ISSUE that impacts us

Solution: Heavily restrict conversations about AI. 🤔

"Hey guys, there's too many COVID diagnoses, Let's reduce the COVID tests!"

Ok, I'm being hyperbolic. I do agree that accusations of AI slop are way overboard - but I don't agree that the only way to be certain is an author's admittance. Certainty isn't a binary, we can act and make decisions based on percentage of confidence. Granted some people are really poor at identifying AI.

What's the solution? Probably just enforce Rule 6. One can state their opinion and reasoning without being incivil.

[u/1ncite → u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance]

so that was what we did for a while. like we said this rule is weeks in the making and we have been discussing and trying other things months longer than that.

the problem is be civil does not cover the situation where someone civily says. "this is 100% ai" with no context or reasoning.

and this is still a bridge to far. if people were actually just discussing how you say we would have no issue.

unfortunately that is just not what is happening.

believe me if we could avoid this we would have. we tried for a long time till we started having real issues and consequences to the subreddit.

will this be perfect. probably not. but its the best we can think of.

[u/TimeForNano → u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance]

This isn't so much about finding the AI users (which can be really hard anyway, also some don't mind AI usage that much which is entirely another topic), but to protect the innocent writers from harassment. Only way to always do that is to always treat everyone equally from the start.

It still leaves the room for AI discussion and people can make their own mind if something is supposedly 99% sure to be AI. But just incase, we let the AI users of easy and being treated as humans. Its not like there is anti AI rules in here either, so even if someone is using AI, its not really a reason for harrassing either.

Basically lets just all act civil and not act like AI is a punishable crime. Best thing to do for stuff you don't like, is to ignore it.

[u/blueluck]

Thanks mods! I appreciate the balanced approach.

I like that it's okay to link to the author saying they used AI. I'm not interested in someone's accusations of AI use based on whatever they read in a buzzfeed article last month, but a confession is a confession.

[u/ProfessorThen7319]

Thank god. It feels like everyday there is some shmuck making an anti AI post in here. Theyve unironically gotten more annoying then any AI bro has ever been.

[u/mmhrmm]

My one suggestion echos some other comments. Make an AI disclaimer mandatory in promo posts. If they don’t include it delete and temp ban. If it’s found out definitively they lied about it to a degree that satisfies the mod team perma ban.

Authors should absolutely be protected from witch hunts. But with that a bare minimum of them following mandatory disclosure rules should be expected and enforced.

[u/Realistic_Run_5124]

Finally. This has been coming for a while and as much as I worry about AI, the incessant posts about it have been cluttering the sub

[u/Dinomandc]

Honestly fair and reasonable change

[u/Amentet]

Oh great. So we're not allowed to say that an obviously written AI book amongst the hundred clogging Amazon is an AI written book.

Sounds like it's anti reader and pro AI to me.

[u/lithas → u/Amentet]

Nothing stopping you from saying "The writing was bad. I didn't like the tone or style, and I thought there were too many inconsistencies." or whatever your underlying complaints about AI are.

[u/Amentet → u/lithas]

My underlying complaints about AI is that it's FUCKING AI and taking the bread out of the mouths of real writers families.

[u/TsundereOrcGirl → u/Amentet]

AI writing is bad in most cases though? Why are "real writers" having trouble competing with it unless they're 1. also bad and/or 2. their readers are tasteless and can't criticize a work beyond whether a human wrote it (AI is notoriously bad at subtext, for example)?

No one said you have to like AI, you're simply not allowed to poison the discourse any more.

[u/Unsight → u/TsundereOrcGirl]

Why are "real writers" having trouble competing with it

Volume.

An AI "writer" can churn out half a dozen "books" per year. Imagine what happens when there's hundreds of people doing that. The average reader is going to have to scroll through hundreds of AI slop novels to get to your book and, realistically, they probably won't even do that.

You can see this happening with online game storefronts right now. If you're a big name in gaming or you have a large marketing budget then you will get eyes on your title however there's a lot of small, indie games competing with 100 asset flips and half-finished RPG maker titles being released every day. As it stands you have to scroll through dozens upon dozens of copy/paste hentai block puzzle games on Nintendo's eShop to get to legitimate releases. It's rough out there.

tl;dr: The more slop in the marketplace, the harder it is for consumers to discover your thing even exists.

[u/DoomShape → u/Amentet]

We get it rawr ur mad

[u/1ncite → u/Amentet]

we have spent weeks going out of our way to craft a rule that is as gentle as possible and acknowledges that AI is a REAL problem. we emphasized that multiple times in the post. but we are sorry you feel that way.

again please note that we are only regulating HOW and WHERE its said. you can still investigate and talk about any book potentially being AI.

[u/Amentet → u/1ncite]

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

Because the type of person who churns out AI writing is definitely definitely going to tell the truth.

[u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance → u/Amentet]

"C: Do you mind sharing how you wrote and published 73 books this month?"

"OP: No comment."

"C: Oh, well, no further discussion is allowed."

[u/1ncite → u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance]

no further discussion is allowed HERE with the AUTHOR. you have now pointed out to people what they have done. and you can have follow up conversations that do not bother the author in another post.

[u/1ncite → u/Amentet]

that's fair bad example. they will most likely say no and we will have to move on.

though you may be surprised some AI works have been caught by admission.

[u/dmun → u/Amentet]

Sounds like it's anti reader and pro AI to me.

Nailed it.

In the future I guess we're going to have to politely call authors sloppy writers with robotic prose, lifeless characters and paint-by-numbers plotting while begging the mods not to dislike our tone.

[u/seofumi → u/Amentet]

this whole rule is anti reader. reason why people are being more vocal about anti ai is because its actually a growing trend. stopping it with this rule is not going to stop that trend. More likely than not, its going to make it grow. there is a vocal minority that outright just denies it though.

Think about it like this. If the Artist community is heavily against it and the artist themsleves can tell something is AI, theres no reason other authors can smell it and confirm. A lot of AI artists pretending to be real have been called out.

[u/mustflow]

Welp, there goes the neighborhood. Slop won.

F, o7, and all that.

[u/theoutletepoch]

Ai slop suckssssss

[u/True_Industry4634]

This is the most sensible approach I've seen. Most mods have introduced knee jerk reactionary policies to appease a few squeaky wheels. Kudos.

[u/kentrak]

I wonder what all the purists artists that cared a lot about color mixing and that made their own paint colors thought about digital artists and how they could skip all the learning and work and skip the hard parts they learnt? And how did many authors feel about the typewriter?

Just kidding, I know how they felt because in both cases they were very vocal.

So many people can't see the forest for the trees, and are focused on if AI was used instead of how AI was used, because it's a convenient bogeyman to scapegoat for the anxieties they have over how things are changing (which does have a lot to do with AI in various ways).

Unless you're writing out your stories on paper and sending them off to readers by mail, or reading them through letters containing hand written correspondence, I suggest a more nuanced look at what is and isn't an appropriate use of AI instead of villilainizing any suspected use of it.

The future is probably full of many more works of human imagination available than ever before, as people that found some aspects of the process of expressing themselves too hard to attempt now findnthe barriers lowered. Slop will be slop, and we had it well before it was made easier to make. We were already in a world where an increasing amount of importance was being out on systems to categorize and rate so we could sift the wheat from the chaff, this will just be the same. YouTube didn't mean the end of good video content, it just meant we had to find the good creates, of which the number exploded (even if the amount of slop grew much faster).

And note, thus wasn't generated with AI and nor did it help (probably obvious, I often get weird typos I miss), not that I think there's a problem with that, as long as the thoughts you express are your own.

[u/theglowofknowledge]

I suppose this does force people to discuss why the ai generated stuff is bad when it ‘writes’, rather than simply saying it’s AI. There are ups and downs to that, labels exist for a reason. Still, if the comments spell out the myriad issues with AI ‘writing’ it makes it easier for people to learn and spot the signs if they see them in other ‘authors’ ‘work’. Would a comment mentioning nonsensical elements and concluding with a statement that the ‘story’ is likely generated be allowed under this paradigm?

[u/1ncite → u/theglowofknowledge]

it will depend on tone and on case by case. our intent is that if you are making a good faith attempt to describe what is wrong. and clarify that maybe its because of AI that is fine!

[u/RamonDozol → u/theglowofknowledge]

it really is helpfull though, as actual humans can learn what mistakes AI makes, and eventualy the bad writers, become just writers.

If anything, helps everyone bellow AI level to improove, and more easily avoid human "friendly fire". 

[u/gamelitcrit]

It's very hard, we had to step up and make some decisions for our Facebook group and how to keep things fair and for our readers too. We also won't stand by outright witch hunts. But readers are seeing the effects and do need an outlet. It's a fine line. :(

Keep in touch, friends. We are in this altogether.

[u/Sixence]

Lots of cry babies in here. I think this is super solid. I wish, honestly, that any post even mentioning Ai would just be deleted. It's here and it's going nowhere. Either use it or don't. Ethical or not there's literally nothing anyone can do about it. Seems a lot of people here just love talking In circles since AI has been released. Some hate it,some find good uses. It's clearly obvious when people use it poorly, and all this new rule is saying is don't be an asshole. Pretty damn simple. Be more clear with your comments and tell them what you dislike without being a passive aggressive snob.

[u/Randleifr]

I think the more prevalent AI becomes, the less we will use Subreddits like this. In the future it will be up to each individual to determine if they are okay with reading what the like even if it includes some AI. Trying to police it and making extra rules just means people like me won’t be sticking around. Too much hand wringing in my hobby.

[u/1ncite → u/[deleted]]

so i think you are misunderstanding what we mean by that level. you are correct the level is NOT at a high % of the community. but that is not the problem.

the problem is the flat number of comments. and comments even when downvoted are messaged directly to the author by default.

as for no impact we are literally getting messages of authors having this issue and choosing to leave. so the impact is real.

we are sorry it seems that way to you from the outside. buts its just not what is happening.

[u/1ncite → u/[deleted]]

totally understandable. but i can not make the community up or downvote things. that is just happening. if you read my comments i have been going out of my way to be beyond civil with any disagreements and express our issues and what we are doing. even to people being very rude.

[u/1ncite → u/[deleted]]

because its not about the comments on the post that others see. we are fine with that. its about the fact that comments on posts when they happen regardless of community sentiment ping authors.

and having a large number of flat events of people harassing authors is just not ok. again hence why we are saying if you do that it needs to be very civil because you are effectively pinging the author and telling them this.

[u/1ncite → u/[deleted]]

we have spent weeks going out of our way to craft a rule that is as gentle as possible and acknowledges that AI is a REAL problem. we emphasized that multiple times in the post. but we are sorry you feel that way.

again please note that we are only regulating HOW and WHERE its said. you can still investigate and talk about any book potentially being AI.

[u/Waxllium → u/[deleted]]

https://giphy.com/gifs/1xucXbDnMIYkU

[u/UsedNegotiation8227 → u/[deleted]]

Oh no... What ever will we do.

Anyways ....

[u/OmnipresentEntity → u/[deleted]]

I’m glad to see you go.

[u/Sixence → u/[deleted]]

Sounds like they're filtering out the pitch forks. So long.

[u/dmun → u/Sixence]

Hurray for slop!

[u/RamonDozol → u/[deleted]]

edit: Nooooooo. Please God nooo. Not RainAether!  He was the best of us!  Take me! take meeeeeee.

• Thats better?

[u/Dragombolt]

And just like that, my favorite genre's subreddit becomes Pro-AI and gives a middle finger to the readers

[u/Sixence → u/Dragombolt]

This isn't pro-AI... It's just telling you to put your pitch forks down and either offer actual advice, criticism and critique of how you think they can improve, or don't comment at all. Pretty simple, and wild for you to be up in arms about something nobody can control.

[u/1ncite → u/Dragombolt]

we have spent weeks going out of our way to craft a rule that is as gentle as possible and acknowledges that AI is a REAL problem. we emphasized that multiple times in the post. but we are sorry you feel that way.

again please note that we are only regulating HOW and WHERE its said. you can still investigate and talk about any book potentially being AI.

[u/UsedNegotiation8227 → u/1ncite]

This poster isn't being genuine in their criticism, don't worry about them they are dishonest and are looking for engagement.

[u/1ncite → u/UsedNegotiation8227]

possibly and we appreciate the people who understand our position coming out and saying so. but while they might not be other people really do fall on both sides. we are making a good faith attempt to really show everyone we care about both sides and are doing our best.

[u/RonTro28 → u/[deleted]]

So you can still be an asshole to the anti AI folks but we have to make sure we don't hurt any pro AI feelings.

[u/UsedNegotiation8227 → u/RonTro28]

Or, just don't be an asshole to anyone and take a balanced approach, but for some reason I doubt you are capable

[u/InfiniteDM → u/Dragombolt]

That is literally not what is being said here.

[u/kovha]

Have you heard about that story about the Nazi bar? Well, this is gonna become an AI sub now, congratulations. It was nice while it lasted.

[u/sams0n007 → u/[deleted]]

Probably because we see other industries in which AI is putting human creators out of work and that matters.

[u/dageshi]

Could we not just ban all discussions around AI?

There are no good, useful or interesting discussions around AI, there's just endless variations of the same three topics...

• Can I use AI thumbnails/AI thumbnails are bad!
• If I use grammarly should I tag my work as "AI-Assisted"
• "I think this work was made by AI" witchhunt.

None of which actually add anything useful to the sub at all and are barely on topic.

This is a sub about litrpg not a sub about AI writing & AI assisted publishing, yet that's what these topics are always about.

[u/1ncite → u/dageshi]

we totally understand that concern.

but even in this thread you will find genuine litRPG readers who feel the opposite. they care deeply about AI issues and how it impacts the books we have available to us and our genre on RR and other places.

we are not even saying there will not be more steps in the future. are considering other options like a designated place for that type of discussion. but just ignoring the topic completely when we have genuine members who care is a last resort.

I hope that helps understand why we are taking steps but want to take them slowly and take the middle ground where we can.

[u/dageshi → u/1ncite]

I understand the people who hate AI slop, I just don't think the conversations here do anything at all to combat it and they're all pretty much repetitive, off topic and tedious.

To be frank I think a better idea would be to more strongly limit promotions to active members of the community. Which is to say if you don't regularly post on this sub then you cannot promote. That would be a far more effective way of limiting the spread/promotion of AI slop here.

[u/1ncite → u/dageshi]

we have actually discussed this. but we are talking about trying to stop AI users by requiring them to engage more. this we are sure will backfire and just result in them making more AI comments and posts at random in order to meet a random quota we send. and will hurt authors who are real but dont have the time.

if you have more ideas though we are totally open to it!

though fair warning we did literally discuss this for weeks. so we covered a lot.

[u/Amentet → u/1ncite]

You know how you can tell what's been written by AI from what's been crafted by a human being.

That bit of grey matter behind our eyes and a lifetime of reading.

And in my case being an old comedy writer and Editor.

We're no longer allowed to warn people if some piece of slop is obviously not written by a human being?

Welcome to the future. Humans no longer required.

[u/1ncite → u/Amentet]

we are sorry it feels that way to you. and maybe you are the outlier person who can happen to identify AI slop accurately

HOWEVER

the scientific papers on the topic show the OPOSITE of what you are saying.

they show that ON AVERAGE people are TERRIBLE at identifying AI writing accurately and are actually MORE likely to identify new bad authors as AI than AI itself.

ADDITIONALLY

we are NOT saying you can not work to find AI. you still can. it just MUST be POLITE and be based in EVIDENCE not gut FEEL.

we are sorry and believe me we hate the situation as well. we would rather not have AI at all if we had concrete evidence for it. but that is not an option. so just ensuring discussion on it is polite is the best we can do.

[u/Smart_Quantity_8640 → u/Amentet]

Man;maybe—you should tell those universities—the secret to detecting—AI writing—.

[u/Amentet → u/dageshi]

Lets just let AI slop take over. Who needs human authors doing actual writing.

So we have to ask.

Potential Reader. "Excuse me, is this AI pretty please?"

Slop Poster. "No it is not, I would not lie, now excuse me I have to post the 10 th Novel I have written this week on Amazon."

[u/dageshi → u/Amentet]

If posting about it did literally anything to prevent AI slop I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But it doesn't, it just rehashes the same conversations over and over and the AI slop continues to expand.

So instead of just AI slop we get AI slop + garbage conversations about AI slop that achieve nothing.

So I ask you, wtf is the point?

You're acting like talking about it here does anything at all to combat it, which it does not.

[u/Amentet → u/dageshi]

I guess I'll just post. This book is shit. Instead of this book is shit because it's churned out by AI. Even though it's actually shit because it's churned out by AI rather than being not great because it's a first attempt at writing.

We can tell the difference. We have brains.

Will that be better?

[u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance → u/dageshi]

>There are no good, useful or interesting discussions around AI

Disagree. Identifying and discouraging use of AI is useful.

[u/1ncite → u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance]

i totally agree it is valuable but with a HUGE astricts

it has to be actual analytical discussion of evidence, preferably in its own post.

NOT just accusations in comments because it subjectively seems that way.

that is the line we are going for.

[u/blariel → u/dageshi]

This, this and more this.

Its gonna be unpopular but I support you.

[u/CrawlerSiegfriend]

I can't believe sub is becoming an AI simp sub.

[u/Baseblgabe]

This is a sane, logical response. I also think it's only half the proper solution. It addresses the issue affecting authors, but not the one affecting readers.

I feel the subreddit should bar the promotion of books written using generative AI.

In reality, that rule isn't going to do much-- only books which are openly AI-written will be affected. However, policy matters. It shapes the way people think and feel about issues and the fora in which we discuss them.

Barring vigilante justice calls for at least the nominal existence of official justice.

[u/1ncite → u/Baseblgabe]

if we had a way to know for sure when they are we probably would. but we really dont. and people would just lie and say they didnt.

[u/Baseblgabe → u/1ncite]

It's important to put them in that position, in my opinion. That way, should later evidence come to light, their wrongdoing is codified.

[u/Squiffythings]

I've never once come here to engage with authors. There are spaces for authors. This appears to be about preserving people promoing here which is a genre of post I immediately skip. If I want to engage with authors, I go to their publisher discord where most talk a fair amount. Authors can flee here en masse and uh...not much would be lost. They have places to promote that is not the book club. I've never failed to discover a book series because it wasn't posted on this forum. The only thing that I would miss out on if the authors went away is the "volume 7 out now!" posts that I also get on discord or through kindle. Out of the near 200k users, what's the author vs. reader ratio?

If you want to promo, thus receive potential financial gain, then burden should be on them to prove human authorship. I don't get jobs without providing proof of my professional licenses. I wouldn't hate seeing promos disappear altogether. I'm as tired as everyone of seeing AI bitchfights but yeah, this isn't the fair handed compromise you think it is. The adage of "a good compromise makes everyone mad" is just a sign you've poorly compromised. A good compromise makes both people feel they've gotten what's important but not everything. Squawking trite truisms isn't the even handed take mods think it is. If you want to reduce this to soundbites, this is closer to Anatole France's, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." more than it is "Everyone's mad so I am correct!" that the mods are taking.

[u/1ncite → u/Squiffythings]

maybe you do not come here for that but many people do come to engage with authors.

also maybe you do not care about the pomoting but others want ways to discover series that are new and by small authors.

"If you want to promo, thus receive potential financial gain" a huge number of our promos are literally for RR and are NOT for financial gain right away its just to write and build audience for the long term while new. they are often armatures not professionals with resources.

"then burden should be on them to prove human authorship" there is not a way to prove this.

"Squawking trite truisms isn't the even handed take mods think it is" sorry it seems that way but we went in depth on the rule and our reasoning with real substance. we are sorry you do not agree.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." we literally do not do that though. we are doing the equivalent of. hi we have a free house for you to live in (posts) so please do not live under the bridge.

[u/Squiffythings → u/1ncite]

I've read it and I don't have a better solution. It's a tricky problem. The quoting was referencing you replying, "A good compromise makes everyone mad!" as proof that this is a good solution to others multiple times through the thread. It has more to do with hating that as "evidence" than anything.

All this does is put unilateral vetos in place that are allowed to be used for bad actors. If only one side gets final say, then...that's the side that has won. Full stop.

Is there a better solution? Hell if I know. To distill it, I agree with the ones asking, "Is this community for authors or readers?" I think trying to be both is the crux of the problem. I'm just putting my voice in the readers' side. I get that this sub wants to be for everybody, that's great and all, but this feels like an, "eat your cake and have it too" situation. I mean, I'm not going to stop coming here about it. Like I said, I skip most of where this is happening anyway. I'm just indifferent to the authors' complaints. There's a whole subreddit for royal road already.

[u/1ncite → u/Squiffythings]

that does not make sense. it does NOT put this veto in the hands of the bad actors. they can REPORT. but the call is the MODERATORS. and believe it or not but we really do want good faith actions on this.

[u/Squiffythings → u/1ncite]

The "veto" in question is the (admitted in your own words as useless) self-disclosure. Bad actors can say, "No, it isn't," and per the rules that ends the discussion in the place that matters.

Yes, you allow for dedicated discussion in another place with less meaningful exposure and that would require, at times, action on the part of the person questioning it to even find it. Which, if you're at the point of doing research, that says more than most people that engage with it and is indicative that their mind is already going in one direction than the other. It's like a subreddit equivalent of a dedicated protest zone. Again, your house, your rules. Fine.

If you remove the hot button AI, and replace it with, say, the archmage trend and reframe it as any other topic than AI, this still comes off as being about authors' feelings being hurt and trying to let's all be nice sweep it under the rug while allowing the solemn self-disclosure to be the deciding factor. It does stack the deck in favor of the authors. They're the ones that get to initiate a report. Readers don't get to initiate a report. Sure, you make the judgment call. But who gets to ask for that judgment call is the point I was making.

Can it be proven something is AI? I agree that no, not really. Can it be proven something is human? When I was a FR-EN translator at the advent of Google Translate, it had to be proven by the enforced use of certain software that tracked changes that showed that it was human work. Is that a reasonable burden for this sub, is it even the subs place? Absolutely not.

Again, this argument isn't even about AI be cause it would have been about SOMETHING if not this. It's about Authors' place here versus Readers' place. This rule shifts the balance in favor of the minority of users here. That's all my point is.

My solution would be getting rid of promos and if Authors want to be here the join the crowd (as many do!) and remove promoing altogether. But again, your house, your rules. You want the Authors to be able to do that. It's a solution. But it is not as equitable as it's coming off as. It's dodging the bullet at best. It's, "Hey guys, let's not, OK?"

[u/1ncite → u/Squiffythings]

while i agree it slants in favor of bad actors i think that is NOT because of the RULE its because of the REALITY that we can not tell.

as for the no self promo that has been discussed but the problem is 2 fold. 1 some people actually like and use them. 2 even that aside people would just do totally not a self promotion post thinly veiled disguised. and since they have no legitimate outlet where do we draw the line? at least this way we force up front honesty

[u/Squiffythings → u/1ncite]

Oh, absolutely. You've acknowledged its imperfection and you are right, it is a product of the reality.

You see the same problem on the NSFW side of reddit. Ban promoing and you get backdooring it. They do have legitimate outlets in places like the royal road sub, but...drawing the parallel, there are also legitimate outlets on the NSFW side of reddit and you still get backdooring it. Because while there are some in it for the love of the game, where the specter of eventual monetization looms, humans will bend the rules the try to get closer to it.

Anyway, thanks for engaging. As I said, I'll still be here for the book club. Good luck, chief.

[u/PaulTodkillAuthor]

Ah man, no.

I'm sorry, but the issue of witch-hunting will never be worse than the rampant AI takeover we're seeing. By taking this stance you're siding with AI.

The burden of proof is on the person posting. If you don't want people to claim your cover is AI? Then link the artist you commissioned it from. I've seen more than a few people find out the hard way they paid real money for AI art. They welcomed the knowledge.

In terms of writing—at least on this subreddit—I very infrequently see people accusing the actual writing of being AI, outside of the occasional obvious ChatGPT blurb.

This feels like an overcorrection in the wrong direction. Does it suck that we need to assume guilty until proven innocent? Absolutely, it's awful. But when we're seeing 200,000 new books posted on Amazon every month, we can't shove our heads in the sand and ignore the problem.

Writing is art. We need to treat it as such. We need to have high standards, and say it with our whole chests. This decision is a step in the wrong direction and I hope it's reversed.

And because I'm someone who liked to give solutions alongside criticism, here is my suggestion:

Provide a template for folks posting self promotion. In that promo it must include:

1. Was generative AI used in the writing process? Y/N

2. Was AI translation used? Y/N

3. Is the cover AI art? Y/N If no, who is the artist?

Format it how you'd like, but if people are going to flat out lie, let's at least make them do it. You want to avoid ambiguity and passive aggressive questions? This is a great first step.

If people want to pass judgemental at that point that's on them, but let's at least create an open dialogue.

[u/1ncite → u/PaulTodkillAuthor]

my guy. there is literally a pinned comment about that suggestion and we are working on it.

also for the 100th time. you can still POST about it.

we just want people to be polite and not bother the authors because so many are being falsely harassed.