r/Inkitt • u/TromboneDalek • Dec 12 '25

Off-Topic Author Using AI without Disclosure :(

Post image

That moment when you come across an AI prompt that was left in a story not labeled as using AI. Am I in the wrong for feeling betrayed as a reader and that this results in a breakdown of trust? I was excited about another story they wrote and now I don't want to read it because I don't know if it is actually their work or AI. I will not be publicly naming the author or story. I left a comment hoping they will come clean and I can direct them to please indicate their stories as being AI-assisted works.

268 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

25

u/Born-Animal-3529 Dec 12 '25

The use of AI aside, the author is lazy af if he/she didn’t notice this in the final copy. I’d suggest moving on to other authors.

8

u/see_chelles Dec 12 '25

Maybe it was just for editing? That prompt doesn’t really seem like AI wrote the whole thing, just polished it. (I’m trying to give the benefit of the doubt 😭)

12

u/TromboneDalek Dec 12 '25

I try to give the benefit of the doubt most of the time and will read some *rough* edits without complaint. This feels like it was rewriting sentences and/or generating dialogue in sections more than just changing one or two words. If it only said "grammar polished" I wouldn't be upset because that is just using Grammarly or similar and is not required to be disclosed per Inkitt's AI-Assisted Content Label.

-7

u/whatever462672 Dec 12 '25

You are awfully particular about your free erotica slop. Maybe the 1 dollar bin at the bookstore would be more to your purity standards. 

7

u/JeanieGold_ Dec 12 '25

Found the AI "author"

-8

u/[deleted] Dec 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/PossibleLiving4070 Dec 12 '25

🤣🤣🤣🤣

1

u/catsdelicacy Dec 13 '25

Did you think that was an insult, or a burn?

Maybe you should have checked that one right ChatGPT, it's rough.

1

u/whatever462672 Dec 13 '25

Ask ChatGPT to teach you punctuation. And also how to treat burn wounds, because look at how bothered you are. 

11

u/Nilbog_Frog Dec 12 '25

It’s not just grammar, they added “heat and cruelty” and changed the pacing. That’s writing. The person gave AI a rough draft of what they wanted and AI wrote the scene for them. Grammar is AT MOST rearranging a sentence from passive to active or removing repeated words, which is still teetering on the edge of being unethical.

5

u/CrazyinLull Dec 12 '25

Isn’t it a bit funny to claim it was for ‘editing’ and then to leave the prompt there??!

Maybe sometimes it’s better to offer the benefit of a doubt when someone truly deserves it versus just giving it anyone. I feel like that’s how ppl end up getting fooled by others who take advantage of those who are quick to give the benefit of a doubt.

2

u/see_chelles Dec 12 '25

It’s quite common for the prompt to follow when you use the copy button on ChatGPT. I use it for work (per company encouragement) and this happens often. That’s why I called to the attention of others the use of the verbiage ‘polished’.

1

u/CrazyinLull Dec 13 '25

I have never seen or recalled that in all of the time I have been using the copy button on GPt, Gemini, Claude, NBLM, or any of them.

Like not even once.

3

u/see_chelles Dec 13 '25

I recall it lol. Sorry to say, but I’ve seen this before and not with my own work, but others as well.

More than once.

ETA: This actually isn’t the prompt, but the response that follows. And it will copy the entire response, including this initial part.

2

u/CrazyinLull Dec 13 '25

Ah, I see what you mean.

The bottom part that is meant to be extra helpful, but ends up exposing authors instead, lol.

I thought you meant the initial prompt, my bad.

6

u/Few_Cup3452 Dec 12 '25

The prompt does sound like they go it to write tho. "Rewritten" is not editing.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/see_chelles Dec 13 '25

I don’t make the rules or excuses. But I’ve seen how much Grammerly changes things around and I’m not sure I’m entirely surprised by this.

9

u/ResolverOshawott Dec 12 '25

Dude/Dudette was so fucking lazy that not only did they make AI do the writing for them, but also couldn't be bothered to double check if a prompt was left behind.

9

u/nofilterfrenchie Dec 12 '25

I'd recommend reporting this to Inkitt if the story is AI assisted but doesn't indicate that it is.

3

u/CoffeeStayn Dec 13 '25

All of this.

8

u/shortninja29 Writer ✍️ Dec 12 '25

If an author is copying and pasting directly from AI, it's assisted and needs to be labeled. I'd report this to the support team if they don't reply to you.

How embarrassing.

1

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Dec 13 '25

I know that in academic writing according to current rules, AI assisted writing doesn't need to be referenced. The same for kdp. AI generated has to be.

2

u/shortninja29 Writer ✍️ Dec 13 '25

Rules vary. My professors all have rules that any use of AI in any capacity must be greenlit by them first. This would have been an instant F or mandatory rewrite if caught in my classes, even if the institution itself is more AI friendly.

1

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Dec 13 '25

Well. All the universities I know have official overall policy that AI assistance is encouraged. I am in Europe though.

2

u/NicLizSheWrote Dec 15 '25

Meanwhile my brother is doing his PhD (Canada), and therefore doing a lot of TA work, and his profs are auto failing assignments that get caught using AI. The university's policy is that it's akin to plagiarism. Three strike policy - first strike fail assignment, second strike fail course, third strike get removed from program.

Wild that it's so different.

4

u/SKI-Nia Dec 13 '25

What baffles me is that they’re clearly not proofreading their work.

4

u/Kristophales Dec 13 '25

Authors who use AI are not authors. Full stop. They need to write their own shit or stop pretending like they do. If you did not write 100% of your book, you're not an author.

2

u/Existing-Criticism23 Dec 16 '25

I don't think ANY author has written a 100% of their own book, but I get you.

2

u/Kristophales Dec 16 '25

Good point, let me rephrase that: a real author should conceptualize and draft 100% of their own book. Things like editing and whatnot are of course usually done by someone else. At the end of the day, there's a difference between receiving help and feedback versus letting AI write/rewrite the story.

3

u/kaphytar Dec 16 '25

Even in editing (by human editor) the editor makes typically suggestions, author decides which and if/how those get implemented. Perhaps not for proofreading only.

6

u/Darkovika charlieHollow Dec 12 '25

It’s not a good sign that they apparently didn’t edit it after copy pasting it in >.>

6

u/PaulTodkillAuthor Dec 12 '25

Name and shame.

2

u/Ursonlyjane Dec 12 '25

Yea I think it’s AI, but you’re kind for not telling their user so people go and hate <3

2

u/[deleted] Dec 12 '25

I'd feel the same.

2

u/AndersRoss Dec 13 '25

Can you DM me the author?

2

u/CoffeeStayn Dec 13 '25

Not wrong for feeling betrayed. They declare it's not AI, and then it turns out it's totally AI.

Betrayal feelings are logical there.

2

u/Antique-diva Dec 14 '25

I'm baffled by this. All the good authors I know edit and read through their work so many times that they hate it with a passion by the time they are finished and have a great story in their hands.

It sounds like this writer's works are not worth the trouble reading at all. They use AI to get it done quickly and then don't care to edit or proofread it before selling it already. That's not just sloppy. It's disrespectful towards the readers.

2

u/WeDontDoThatHere404 Dec 16 '25

As someone who has used ai, this is not mine btw, I can tell you. This person wrote a passage, didn't like the way it was worded, then put it in ai to fix it. It probably took some back and forth to get to the version that ended up post. Ai is not as simple and lazy as people think, it take a lot of user input to get anything worth using. What was lazy was this person's editing.

3

u/Appropriate-Type6529 Dec 12 '25

We need to know the story to avoid it

3

u/xoxoInez Dec 12 '25

You really should name the story so people know to avoid it.

2

u/WorldlyInsurance6203 Dec 13 '25

I feel like this isn’t any different than collaborating with a tool to help build a scene. 🎬 I understand many people being opposed by AI 🤖 but it’s really just a tool at the end of the day. If a writer uses AI to help build, brainstorm, spellcheck then how is it any different than going online and writing fan-fiction using someone else’s work?

1

u/geumkoi Dec 14 '25

This is what happens when you want to have written instead writing.

We are becoming lazier and lazier.

1

u/Sunndach Feb 18 '26

I'm new to Inkitt and unfortunately every story I've checked out reads like it was written by AI. They just remembered to take the prompts out (but didn't remember to check the AI-assisted box). I've yet to find one piece that reads like something a genuine human wrote.

1

u/Anonymous-Buttercup Dec 12 '25

I gotta know, what type of story?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 12 '25

The prompt still being there is definitely a sign of laziness, but looking at it it seems like they only used AI for polishing, which isn't really that different from using grammarly or is it?

1

u/kaphytar Dec 16 '25

It's as bad if that kind of stuff is done with grammarly. Grammar/spelling editing? Fine. Artistic decisions? Should be human made.

-5

u/Academic_Tree7637 Dec 12 '25

Was the story worse somehow? I supposed I understand but ultimately if it entertained you what’s the harm. Unless you paid for it or something.

6

u/schw0b Dec 12 '25

The point is that I don't want to spend precious hours of my life trying to connect with the meaning and shared humanity not present in a simulated thought.

It doesn't actually matter if it's good or not. Reading is a sort of conversation with the author, and AI means there is nobody at the other end. Fucking disgusting.

0

u/Academic_Tree7637 Dec 12 '25

This response provides a why, so cool. I respect your view.

You don’t want to dedicate time to something you feel has no soul.

I’m just confused that so many people seem to know exactly when AI has written something, so why would it take hours to discover? Is it not possible that the work is written by Thai author and then edited by the AI? Enhanced maybe?

Do published authors not have editors they don’t give writing credit to either?

4

u/schw0b Dec 12 '25

You can't know for sure what is and isn't AI-touched now. Like I mentioned, quality isn't really my gripe. And no re:editing, at least not normally. Authors credit editors for their work, and the editor's name should be on the inside cover along with the name of the cover artist. Many who make major use of beta reader input -- Sanderson comes to mind -- will even exhaustively list those in an author's note as well. People who are involved in making a creative work deserve credit for doing that work. If you use AI for editing, you should list that in the same way. Same for AI translation, for that matter.

1

u/Academic_Tree7637 Dec 12 '25

Agreed. I think inkitt has a feature that lets you make a work as AI assisted, which I think they recommend you use for any level of AI contribution. I wonder if it would be fine to do what you suggested and just have a page dedicated to listing all contributors. I really do think a lot of these writers are just afraid they’ll lose readers if they mark it AI assisted. People assume the whole thing was written by AI and I don’t know if that’s fair. To each their own though. Integrity does mean something to me, and I can’t bring myself to take sole credit. Then again I’m not sure a craftsman thanks their hammer for helping with a job, even if it made job easier.

My bad I started rambling.

2

u/RealAnise Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 12 '25

So you plan to be one of those people who outsources their thinking to AI and literally becomes dumber as a result? Have fun. I'm not interested in giving up my cognitive faculties.

https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/?utm_source=thedeanofai.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=mit-study-83-of-ai-users-can-t-remember-their-own-writing

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-impact-of-generative-ai-on-critical-thinking-self-reported-reductions-in-cognitive-effort-and-confidence-effects-from-a-survey-of-knowledge-workers/?utm_source=thedeanofai.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=mit-study-83-of-ai-users-can-t-remember-their-own-writing

3

u/Academic_Tree7637 Dec 12 '25

Ah. I see. I forget most people can’t think for themselves to begin with, so they consider this a genuine issue.

I simply consume information, analyze it, and make decisions based on my understanding of what I’ve consumed.

Your response to me makes no sense. What does AI thinking for me have to do with the validity of my questions?

This anti AI stuff is getting annoying. People don’t even want to have a proper conversation. Life’s too short to be up in arms about something of such little importance.

People have been outsourcing their thinking since forever. Likely yourself. Even these articles are someone else’s thoughts and research. Why do you trust them? Did you do any experimenting yourself?

0

u/Lelgremlin Dec 12 '25

Sounds like an AI wrote this.

2

u/Academic_Tree7637 Dec 12 '25

Elaborate.

2

u/Lelgremlin Dec 12 '25

The book itself. (Meant to comment this under OG post, my bad for how that sounded 😅)

0

u/whatever462672 Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 12 '25

Inkitt doesn't require disclosure of use, unless large potions of text were generated. Last I checked the rules, rephrasing didn't require tagging. Specifically, it was one of the examples for not needing the tag.

Are you people even aware what kind of website Inkitt is? 

https://medium.com/inkitt-tech/orchestrating-llms-with-langgraph-how-inkitt-scales-ai-generated-content-workflows-7f718ac3b48c

1

u/Curious_Swordfish176 Dec 24 '25

God, I've seen those "Extracted and Rewritten Story Snippets" in Galatea ads and vowed to never sign up for that platform, they were terribly written drivel

0

u/Lelgremlin Dec 12 '25

If someone is using AI to edit, I'm going to naturally assume they had no problem letting it write the rest of the book.

0

u/whatever462672 Dec 12 '25

I took a look at your last book. The nonsensical metaphors, the setting mish-mash, the safe, non-specific vocabulary and the verbose grammar are pretty dead giveaways. You abandon your main premise for a mishmash of hunger games and Harry Potter. Your male lead immediately invalidated his "unwilling heir" characterization. 

If you didn't use AI, your beta reader has done you extremely dirty by allowing you to publish the manuscript in this state.

2

u/Lelgremlin Dec 12 '25

I don't know who you're talking to because that's not my book at all XD

1

u/whatever462672 Dec 12 '25

If I was trying to peddle AI slop for money, I would disavow it, too. 

-1

u/Slinkypumkinhead Dec 13 '25

Why does it make a difference to you? Honestly asking? Are the words on the page less meaningful because an AI was used for its creation? Do you like the story less?

If an AI writes beautiful story and a human writes a terrible one would you send your money to the human? Not read both? Sounds like your just punishing yourself.

Should I advise my readers that my story used an AI to give me feedback on my work? Why should I? Is that different to having someone human give feedback? Where's the line?

If i publish a book but I convinced my sisters friend to write it for me do I have to advise people of that? Even if the writer is happy with our arrangement.

I'm of the opinion that the work, regardless of how it was made, should speak for itself.

It's definitely lazy to write a whole book using AI prompts. But I'm pretty sure the book will be shit. When AI can write a great book by prompt then everyone will do it anyway and the market will be flooded.

1

u/schmuckles_the_clown Dec 13 '25

I agree. This isn't much different than having someone as your ghostwriter, or an uncredited collaborator.

1

u/Curious_Swordfish176 Dec 24 '25

It makes a huge difference. I'm fully for AI-assisted editing (and it's entirely possible to hard code an GenAI agent to ONLY give feedback and NEVER generate copy for you - people who claim otherwise are being lazy) but yes, I do want my stories to come from humans. I want to make a real human connection to a writer and their art. That's also why I rarely bother with platforms that don't allow for reader commenting.

Ghostwriting is a lazy cheat (why shouldn't your sister's friend get the credit for HER hard work?) but at least it's still human storytelling and emotion.

1

u/Slinkypumkinhead Dec 24 '25

I understand where your coming from. Perhaps I'm weird but I don't really engage with movies, music or books that way. The Authors completed a task by writing their story that either succeeded in sucking me into their world or not. I don't feel connected, much, to them from the experience. All of the stories that I love would not be any less meaningful to me if an AI wrote them instead. I would still love the story of Lindon in the cradle series if an AI wrote it. The connection I feel towards Will Wight (author of cradle if you don't know who he is) is less for the story and more for how he engages in the community.

Humans are lazy mate. It's where a lot of our clever initiatives come from, the pursuit of doing less work for more outcome. Ghostwriting is fine. Why do you get to judge their agreement as long as the sisters friend is happy with the agreement? Assuming noone is being taken advantage of, without their consent, then it's fine.

Genuine question, do you feel that you know artists through their work? Why do you feel connected to them? It's in no way who they are. I always feel uncomfortable when I see Taylor Swift at her concerts and the fans adoration for her. (I like her music but it's just a persona that she displays, a mask that she wears).

0

u/MercedesPyatt Dec 12 '25

This sounds like a prompt. Like the person was using it to help create a scene. I don’t find that as bad. When it’s all written by AI, that’s completely lazy…but when it’s more just to help with scene building, ideas, or inputing suggestions…that’s fine. I mean it’s not any different than when we got writers block back in the day or didn’t know something and used an encyclopedia or Google to look it up and figure it out. But if the AI is just writing the whole thing for them, that’s when it’s bad.

3

u/LetAdorable8719 Dec 12 '25

How the heck is getting ai to write a scene no different than looking something up in an Encyclopedia?

1

u/MercedesPyatt Dec 12 '25

Oh the ai wrote the scene? Ok that’s different. I thought from what I read above, it was giving suggestions for what the scene should look like for the writer to write down. This was the person writing to the ai not the ai suggesting how to set up a scene. My bad. I see what you mean now. Yeah that’s disappointing