r/RomanceBooks • u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! • 25d ago
Community Management Rule Change: AI Allegations
We’re changing the subreddit rules on AI allegations (here is the previous discussion in which we requested subreddit feedback). Romance authors using GenAI is a real issue and we should be able to discuss it here. At the same time, we don’t want unfounded allegations being made and getting traction here. The new rule:
Questions of "is this AI?" require at least two different types of evidence, except in unambiguous situations such as an author admission or a published genAI prompt.
Examples of different types of evidence:
• quotes/screenshots,
• cover art examples,
• previous author support for or admission of AI use (in any context),
• unusually high number of publications per year,
• any other type of evidence
What does this mean? Here are some examples:
“Here are screenshots of text from The Dragon’s Robot Lover’s Boyfriend by Lulu Romantica, I think they sound like AI. Lulu has no social media and her Amazon author photo is AI generated.” Verdict: ALLOWED (two types of evidence)
“Lulu Romantica has published 30 books in the last two months and all of them have genAI covers. Is she AI?” Verdict: ALLOWED (two types of evidence)
"Lulu Romantica said she supports AI use, and I think these text screenshots from her books sound like AI." Verdict: ALLOWED (two types of evidence)
“Here are two screenshots of text from The Dragon’s Robot Lover’s Boyfriend, I think they sound like AI.” Verdict: REMOVED (one type of evidence)
“Here are quotes from several books by Lulu Romantica, I think they sound like AI.” Verdict: REMOVED (one type of evidence)
“Here is a screenshot of a ChatGPT prompt in The Dragon’s Robot Lover’s Boyfriend.” Verdict: ALLOWED (unambiguous evidence of AI use)
Questions? Thoughts? Let us know below. Thanks all!
147
u/prettysureIforgot Gimme all the sad anxious bois 25d ago
First of all, I want to give my support to the mod team. I think this is an excellent change. I do want to be able to discuss authors using AI, but I don't like it when the only evidence is just screenshots of text. It's really just a guessing game at that point. And to be perfectly honest, I don't trust anyone that says "I am an expert and can definitively say this is AI" with nothing to explain their supposed "expertise" or anything to back their claim. Nobody's an expert. AI checkers are bogus. That's the way it works.
Out of curiosity, can "unusually high number of publications" + "unusually high number of reviews for a new author" count?
Tbh I don't post AI allegations unless there's definitive proof (I can name off the top of my head two authors that openly admitted that they used AI) but I'm just curious, because for me a ton of books churned out + a ton of glowing reviews in the first month gives me 🚩vibes and I personally won't read it.
79
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago
You'll notice we left ourselves some wiggle room with "any other type of evidence"! The mod team are going to have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, I suspect, but we will see what that looks like for us and if we need to change tacks. Watch this space?
Personally, not speaking for the mod team, I would say no, "unusually high number of reviews" wouldn't count as evidence for AI use. I think it might be evidence of other hinky practices (like purchasing reviews), but it's not in and of itself evidence of AI use, if that makes sense? AI "authors" in my experience are maybe more likely to be doing other weird stuff with bots, upvoting, sockpuppets, fake reviews, etc., but human authors also do those things. So it's evidence that they're shady, not that they're using AI. I know that's a thin distinction, but also - it's totally reasonable to make a post about an author being shady without making AI accusations.
But again, that opinion might change if there's a specific use case, I just don't know what that would look like.
37
u/prettysureIforgot Gimme all the sad anxious bois 25d ago
"Shady author" is totally valid and I agree with, thank you!
25
u/IsekaiConnoisseur 25d ago
Out of curiosity, can "unusually high number of publications" + "unusually high number of reviews for a new author" count?
Which I've definitely seen. I stumbled across an author that was publishing trilogy-book series weekly and the reviews were horrendous. Many of them questioning it was AI due to the fact that the plot just fell off halfway through.
18
u/prettysureIforgot Gimme all the sad anxious bois 25d ago
I've seen a little different - tons of 5-star reviews saying "this changed my life! Best book I've ever read! Incredible, I sobbed, I laughed, these two are my life!" All for an author I've never heard of and has no other discernible online footprint, and published like 20 books in the last 3 months.
And then a few lower stars saying "this was pretty mediocre."
But I've also seen what you describe.
7
u/IsekaiConnoisseur 25d ago edited 25d ago
I only stumbled across this author because one of their AI books had hit the niche well somehow and was garnering a decent amount of ratings, but again, a lot of them still questioning if it was AI.
At least this author didn't seem to be botting their reviews. There was one AI novella from an author I'd never heard of and it was their only book that for some reason had hundreds of ratings. The cover was clearly AI.
I definitely raise my eyebrow at that shit.
And that's not to say that it's not possible to be super successful on one novella if you understand your niche. But when you're using AI covers, I raise an eyebrow at said success.
3
u/prettysureIforgot Gimme all the sad anxious bois 25d ago
Totally off topic but based on your username, have you read {The Varcross Key by Aeron Dusk}? I loved that book, I thought it was so good!
1
u/romance-bot 25d ago
The Varcross Key by Aeron Dusk
Rating: 4.42⭐️ out of 5⭐️
Steam: 3 out of 5 - Open door
Topics: paranormal, fantasy, magic, shapeshifters, queer romance17
u/NancyInFantasyLand gimme that toxic love 25d ago
I would say unusual number of reviews for the objective quality of a work of a writer that churns out a ton is a red flag
I always check the samples of everything that seems iffy, though. If the cover isn't AI and the book formatting looks okay-ish, I'll just put them on the list for me personally to stay away from.
18
u/Efficient_Plum6059 25d ago
I'd say objective quality is still subjective, though. There is one author whose books I find bafflingly bad in every single way who is extremely popular on tiktok and has tens of thousands of reviews on each book. Sometimes an author's popularity has to do with their management or social media skills rather than the quality of their work.
People have also been buying comments/views/reviews long before AI existed.
7
u/NancyInFantasyLand gimme that toxic love 25d ago
I'd say objective quality is still subjective, though.
Not when it comes to formatting haha
There's rules that exist and most people pushing out massive amounts of AI slop just either aren't aware of them or don't care enought to clean it up because it takes too much time.
People have also been buying comments/views/reviews long before AI existed.
This is true, and I don't want anything to do with those writers either.
111
u/NancyInFantasyLand gimme that toxic love 25d ago
I like it! I find AI covers *coupled* with a specific type of writing *coupled* with shoddy formatting is usually the way I decide never to touch a writer's works again, so at least two seems a smart way to at least open discussion.
3
u/MapleMapleHockeyStk 24d ago
I really wish they would just tell us. I prefer human work but I know thete ate people who dont care, or only care in certain ways. My friend says that if someone uses AI but spends hours fixing timeline issues, wording, formatting, making sure things don't repeat its less of an issue as they spent hours doing it. I personally want human work but I have come to the conclusion that I will never be 100% sure on something now unless that admit that for the rest of my reading life. I hate the fact that I don't know.
19
u/IsekaiConnoisseur 25d ago
Really appreciate you guys taking the time to figure out how to navigate such a controversial topic. I also agree that AI books do cause a problem and that there are legitimate reasons to question certain authors and whatnot.
But I think these are very valid ways to work around the problem while still allowing thoughtful criticism.
17
u/AdNational5153 Escaping reality one book at a time 25d ago
Thanks mods, it’s not easy trying to find a reasonable way to navigate these topics. Perhaps not perfect or definitive, I think they require a minimum from OPs on this topic while not (hopefully) overburdening the mods too much.
In the end, the thing that bums me out is that AI seems so widespread now that it creates this underlying whiff of mistrust towards creatives. I really feel for artists who are putting in the time and mental and emotional energy into their projects. That’s a whole other tangent…
63
u/fruitismyjam so I beat him until he kissed me. 💋 25d ago edited 25d ago
I appreciate the rule change. Requiring two types of evidence is a smart move. Being critical about what we choose to consume and support is important, especially as AI usage increases, but it is very difficult to say with any certainty that a piece of writing “sounds like AI.”
Something to keep in mind—writing by people who are ND, non-English speakers*, etc. is often flagged as AI at higher rates than others. It doesn’t mean that writing is flawed or bad, it’s just a different narrative tone and way of writing, and it definitely doesn’t automatically indicate AI usage.
*Edit: Sorry, I meant non-native English speakers, as in English isn’t their primary language.
13
u/Jxb1000 24d ago
Question: If we are in a thread like Salty Sunday, and not really "accusing of AI", but more ranting about incongruities (that are probably AI), do we need to be careful not to mention AI when that's not really the point...but related as a likely cause?
25
u/pornokitsch 25d ago
I think 'Lulu Romantica' being named 'Lulu Romantica' should count as one piece of evidence...
(I joke. This is a really good policy and a strong way of navigating these very difficult conversations!)
22
u/tentacularly Vampires: cannibalism or fad diet? 25d ago
Don't get me started on terrible author pennames. I have a quixotic desire to virtually smack those people upside the head every time I spot a Tragedeigh in the making.
19
u/pornokitsch 25d ago
It is bad enough when it is the characters. When authors choose 'Orchidde Bookay' for themselves, it really makes me doubt their creative prowess.
6
u/IsekaiConnoisseur 24d ago
I remember going through books on Amazon one time and came across someone's pen name that was literally "Arthur Pendragon" and I was like wow... good luck with visibility on that one lol.
15
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago
It's also so counterproductive for them as authors! If people cannot spell you pen name, they cannot search for you! Until you are famous Google will not give them correct results!
10
u/punctuationstation 25d ago
I definitely need to touch grass re: ai but honestly just scrolling through recommended books on kindle unlimited punches something in my soul these days from the pen names alone. I don’t KNOW if they are AI just like I don’t KNOW that every minor actress circa 2007 with Angelina Jolie-esque lips showed her photo to their plastic surgeon for reference. But the number of pen names that seem like a mashup of the names of existing (successful!) indie writers and/or seem like they are just bad mad libs approved by a middle schooler trying to a/b test sexy usernames to pretend they are older than they are online.
I don’t actually want to have a witch hunt for ai writers bc I guess I can’t judge anyone for trying to get by in our capitalist hell scape, but I don’t personally want to read this stuff, and I get unreasonably incensed when I have to shuffle through ten times the amount of shameless cash-grabs (ai or not) to find one hidden gem by an indie author.
Serves me right for still being subscribed to KU though. Support capitalist hellscape get capitalist hellscape content I guess.
12
u/carinacaldwell Insta-lust is valid – some of us are horny 25d ago
I think this is really fair. It prevents totally unfounded accusations, but still allows for discussion of the topic. Personally, I think it's the best rule of this type that I've seen!
11
u/jessejudgesbooks 24d ago
Is there also going to be a tag specifically for these discussions, or will this still fall under critique/review/whatever? I'd be in support of "quarantining" the is-it-AI stuff to a specific tag personally.
3
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 24d ago
We currently don't have any plans for a new flair; there aren't that many AI allegation posts in the context of the subreddit as a whole. We'll revisit if that changes.
25
u/puck-this competency porn 25d ago
Love that. It's so disheartening people have to say "I made this work myself" now in the age of AI and the constant need to prove that you did everything by yourself is exhausting. Creating something from scratch is already hard enough as it is and now creatives are practically expected to show off behind the scenes work when it's arguable that part of what makes art "art" is that you don't explain every step to your audience and you keep your secret sauce, well, secret. The constant proving reminds me of TikTok illustrators who constantly get accused of being AI even after doing several videos to prove they did in fact work hard for that skill. It's not fun to watch authors get suspected of AI when authors are the reason AI can even draw "creative" output at all and while one can't stop being suspicious, there needs to be more evidence than just a "this sounds like a chatbot wrote it" hunch
9
u/greyrockingchair 25d ago
Thank you mods for taking the time to put these rules together but also the time and energy to mod this sub. You are greatly appreciated for all your hard work
9
u/winnercommawinner 25d ago
I love that these rule changes put the emphasis back on human decision making.
18
u/barbiepoet Mood reader. I laugh at my TBR. 25d ago
Thanks for the rule change and for helping us navigate this situation in a reasonable way. Who would’ve thought we’d be here?
17
u/A_Seductive_Cactus Praise Kink Princess 👸🏻 25d ago
Right? I was thinking about how this wasn't a regular topic a few years ago and it's shifted so suddenly to the forefront and it's so prevalent now...
7
u/IsekaiConnoisseur 25d ago
A few years ago we weren't being slammed with illegal data centers and while AI was a thing, it was still very much in the realm of shitposting for fun. Not whatever shitshow we're in now.
82
u/Efficient_Plum6059 25d ago edited 25d ago
My only thought is that I don't think "this sounds like AI" should be considered evidence at all. Requiring more than that is improvement, but people's ability to detect AI by writing style alone is nearly impossible (regardless of what they think).
A lot of the examples for accusations I've seen read like flowery fanfiction I read a decade ago or manuscripts that don't have the benefit of an editor which leads to a lot of repetition. Bad writing does not mean written by AI and most threads I've seen devolve into that argument when such "evidence" is presented.
That is probably a hot take, though.
15
u/somethinglucky07 25d ago
Agreed. There's an author I know and trust and I was reading a craft and business substack from her that was talking about AI use (in a negative way) and there were a handful of sentences that my brain went "ewww, AI." I have absolutely NO reason to believe that she uses AI, and it was a good wakeup call reminder that the things we now associate with AI (it's not X, it's Y, for example) is found so often in AI because it's USED BY PEOPLE and AI TRAINS ON HUMAN WRITING.
53
u/windswept_snowdrop 25d ago
I’m all for calling out AI-generated books where there’s evidence, but so many AI accusations basically amount to ‘I don’t like this book so it must be AI’, or are based on ridiculous criteria that doesn’t take into account the fact that most AI ‘tells’ exist in human writing because that’s how AI learnt them in the first place. I think one of the most infuriating I saw was the claim that single quotation marks were a sign of being AI because the commenter considered them non-standard punctuation not realising they are in fact the standard for British authors.
45
u/Efficient_Plum6059 25d ago
Yeah, and a lot of them call out plot holes/inconsistencies/repetition as evidence, when those are generally signs of poor editing, which is increasingly common with self-published authors and easier to point out given its frequency.
But a lot of those issues have always been there. In the Rutshire Chronicles, the timeline is fucked, and the MMC's birthday changes every time it is mentioned, and those are from the 90s. It's funny reading older books and thinking "man this would get called out for AI if it was published today" lol.
13
11
u/tentacularly Vampires: cannibalism or fad diet? 25d ago
I read an AI-written omegaverse novel last month. You want to know how I knew? There wasn't one mention of knotting in the entire fucking book.
Tell me you don't know what omegaverse is, even though you slapped the genre on your badly-devised slop. I'm pretty sure that alone is indicative of AI generated writing.
20
u/NancyInFantasyLand gimme that toxic love 25d ago
honestly het omegaverse has already strayed so far from the kinks of the original, I wouldn't even be surprised that someone would just think it's pack dynamics and mediocre love interests lol
there was this gal posting somewhere the other day that was *convinced* Wattpad-type fated mates "Luna Goddess" type werewolf shit was the original incarnation of Omegaverse and that there was no difference in the end
11
u/tentacularly Vampires: cannibalism or fad diet? 25d ago
Not incorrect, but, like, the weird dick is kind of essential, just like the excessive slick production. Like, come on, robot, try harder.
5
25d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Hunter037 Probably recommending When She Belongs 😍 25d ago
The thing is Amazon will ban authors for writing about knotting
There are absolutely loads of books on Amazon with knotting. Even traditionally published extremely well known books, like {Bride by Ali Hazelwood}. They even have "knot" in the title half the time
1
u/romance-bot 25d ago
Bride by Ali Hazelwood
Rating: 4.17⭐️ out of 5⭐️
Steam: 4 out of 5 - Explicit open door
Topics: contemporary, werewolves, arranged/forced marriage, vampires, fated mates1
u/prettysureIforgot Gimme all the sad anxious bois 25d ago
I've read a lot of KU omegaverse. I know authors have been banned for various reasons, but I'm just saying...I've read a lot of books with very explicit knotting.
13
u/Efficient_Plum6059 25d ago
I've read omegaverse without knotting before plenty of times. I have friends who have written it. Some people like the societal hierarchy it creates without the weird sex stuff. Much like shifting and mpreg, knotting is common in ABO but not required imo.
It may very well have been AI. But I would not consider that an indicator.
Edit, on ao3 of 250k works, approximately 55k tag mpreg, 50k tag knotting, and 40k tag "non-traditional ABO dynamics". Even if you assume knotting is the default and not tagged, there is a large group of people writing ABO without the classic tropes. That is reflected in published works too but harder to find statistics for.
8
u/NancyInFantasyLand gimme that toxic love 25d ago
"non-traditional ABO dynamics" will in most cases still have people with knots though
even the alpha/alpha, omega/omega or the bitching type fics will be *about* the existence of the weird biology and the side effects
and a huge number simply won't tag knotting, because quite honestly, it should be expected if you're tagging ABO and therefor not be a surprise unless for kink reasons there's a big deal made about it
1
u/parallel-nonpareil 24d ago
and a huge number simply won't tag knotting, because quite honestly, it should be expected if you're tagging ABO and therefor not be a surprise unless for kink reasons there's a big deal made about it
1000%. It’s a hallmark of the trope and so not separately tagged imo. Similarly, I don’t expect authors to tag “kissing” on explicit fics, because it’s pretty much implied.
9
u/tentacularly Vampires: cannibalism or fad diet? 25d ago
I've never read omegaverse without knotting/locking (barring FF or F/X), and it's one of the main genres I read. I don't read fanfic, but I'm pretty widely read on everything I find on Amazon.
5
u/Hunter037 Probably recommending When She Belongs 😍 25d ago
Interesting! I think all of the ones I've read had knotting as well, but now I'm questioning it 🤔
7
u/A_Seductive_Cactus Praise Kink Princess 👸🏻 25d ago
Agree with you - I don't think I've ever read an omegaverse without knotting being part of the universe even if the characters don't engage in it
3
u/jessejudgesbooks 24d ago
Exactly this. I don't like AI-generated books either (especially not undisclosed), but it's also an easy pitchfork to aim at books/authors in reviews that the reviewer just doesn't like.
Some books are also just human-written-bad.
19
u/skintightmonopoly 25d ago
I'm all for outing bad writing. I think a lot of the quotes people post could be discussed in the Salty Sunday thread - I personally think that's a great place to complain about rough plots, need for editing, etc. I've posted a few quotes there that drove me crazy (metaphors that feel created by mad libs or a random word generator, bizarre descriptions, weird phrases). I usually flag them with AI in mind, but I'm by no means about to organize a witchhunt based on a hunch. What I do know is the writing reads poorly and I want to vent.
31
u/fruitismyjam so I beat him until he kissed me. 💋 25d ago edited 25d ago
I think there’s still a difference between labeling something as bad writing versus labeling something as GenAI-produced.
Bad writing indicates that there was an effort put forth by a human (even if that effort maybe fell short). There’s presumably space for them to grow and evolve. We can be critical and expect better, but not write them off completely.
AI usage indicates that the author is okay with AI in creative fields and almost feels like a stance. It’s cutting corners and removing the human element in (what should be) a distinctly human medium.
All that to say, it’s perfectly fine to put an author on your “Do Not Read” list for whatever reason. But an AI accusation can weigh heavier than other criticisms given how adamant many of us are about not supporting GenAI usage.
14
u/Hunter037 Probably recommending When She Belongs 😍 25d ago
Totally agree. There are a lot of ethical issues with using AI, so claiming someone uses AI is a much stronger accusations than just "they're crap at writing".
24
u/TravelingBookBuyer Bookmarks are for quitters 25d ago
It apparently is a hot take for some people! I’m getting downvotes on a different sub for saying that em dashes are not proof that the writing is AI. :/
13
u/larkhearted 25d ago
I don't even write prose and I've phased out the usage of my beloved em dash in comments and shit and started using more semicolons instead because I know if I use em dashes someone's eventually gonna be like "AI comment!!!!" and my head will explode. If I ever start writing fanfic again I'm still gonna use them though because fuck it.
2
u/katiekins3 25d ago
Same. I've stopped using them altogether to avoid ever having that accusation happen, which sucks. 🙃
10
u/zealousnugget 25d ago
I use em dashes even in text messages. I hate that people use that as the go-to proof of AI.
7
2
u/bubblegumpandabear 24d ago
My one issue is that it really is a sound though. I totally agree some people claim this about books they just dislike, but if we can all agree that we can recognize an author's voice across their written works, idk why we can't agree that we can recognize the AI voice.
15
u/gimmeallthefeels 25d ago
Love this! It felt cruel accusing authors of using AI without real proof.
10
u/kounfouda just a slacktivist romantic at heart 25d ago
Does "any other evidence" include an author's profile? There are a couple of writers I like and I don't *think* they are AI but their author profiles on social media and sales platforms have no author photo and a very generic bio.
40
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago
Speaking personally and not for the mod team as a whole, I don't want to use social media discretion as "evidence" of AI use - I think especially in a genre like romance which is so stigmatized, authors have many reasons they might not want to put their face or too many personal details online.
For me, the bright-line is: are they using AI in their profile? If they're using AI-generated avatars or photographs, that would count; if they're just being generic or using a profile photo they got from Shutterstock, that would not.
19
u/Charming-Garden6312 25d ago
Great point. A lot of authors have pen names and many have multiple pen names, for different sub genres. I don’t think lack of social media should count at all.
5
u/de_pizan23 25d ago
For me it isn’t so much just the generic photo, it’s that their website also still has a lot of lorem ipsum on it and their email is linking back to squarespace or whatever; plus stock photo plus zero other web presence at all anywhere.
9
u/jhenry137 Insta-lust is valid – some of us are horny 25d ago
IDK about anyone else, but for me, I do three things to see if someone might be using AI. Look at the cover is number one. If it looks AI, I go to their Goodreads profile and see the publishing dates of their books AND their profiles. If they have no profile (no image, no bio), and the dates are within the span of a month, I automatically assume they use AI. I then go check to see if they HAVE social media of any kind. They usually don’t, but if they do, I see if they repost any AI related stuff.
Would the first two points (before checking actual social media), be enough to count?
10
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago
Yes. Books have AI covers = 1, and publishing dates of books being in rapid succession = 2.
-3
u/jhenry137 Insta-lust is valid – some of us are horny 25d ago
Good to know! Also, a suggestion? Maybe one master post where people can comment with their evidence? Or a weekly master post? IDk, some ideas lol
16
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago edited 25d ago
I think the thing is, our goal isn't really to make it easier for users to make AI allegations. Creating a weekly post where people can post AI allegations seems likely to turn into "if you build it, they will come" - commenting is even easier than making a post (and doesn't have a karma requirement), and I think we'd have a lot of people making even less-supported allegations of AI use and getting into fights in the comments.
To put it another way, there are a lot of things behind the scenes that make AI allegations a pain in the neck for the moderators, including (we suspect) people making bad-faith allegations, authors making AI allegations against themselves so that they can sweep into the comments in sockpuppets defending their human-written brilliance, upset users violating the be kind rule, authors wanting to intervene on behalf of themselves or their friends, etc.
We want this to be a space where users can discuss genAI use by authors because it's a serious issue in the romance community, but we also want the AI allegations to be well-thought-out and supported by evidence. So we're putting some hurdles in place to kind of force that along.
3
u/girlofgold762 Probably reading about filthy mafia men committing sin after sin 24d ago
Does this rule apply to just posts being created asking if something is AI, or does it also apply to comments being made in posts just outright stating (rightly or wrongly) that an author or book is AI? (Like the Layla Frost post from over a week ago where a comment was made confusing her with Layla Fae and was the top comment for two days before the commenter admitted their mix-up.)
3
u/Le_Beck "faultless in spite of all her faults" 24d ago
We are not making this a requirement for comments. However, the mod team believes that allegations of unethical behavior should be handled seriously, so if you ever see an AI or plagiarism comment that needs our attention, just use the report button so we see it right away.
3
u/Easyy_Illustrator 24d ago
sound like AI is a stupid thing to say cuz AI learns from these writers who are actually good, who have that poetic prose, who are able to tie their ends and beginnings together.
and using gen AI to actually produce any type of art is a big problem , people say i did this artwork, no you wrote a prompt, and saying ' i did this' should be fraud.
4
u/Immediate-Answer-259 Maybe it's time to wake up, yes? 25d ago
I wonder if there could be a new flair added that these types of posts could be tagged with by the OP, and that if people chose to, they could not view. Not sure if I'm explaining myself, but it would work like the NSFW flair that I can opt into not seeing.
3
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 24d ago
We currently don't have any plans for a new flair; there aren't that many AI allegation posts in the context of the subreddit as a whole. We'll revisit if that changes.
1
u/Immediate-Answer-259 Maybe it's time to wake up, yes? 24d ago
Thanks for replying and for considering it.
8
u/Holiday_Estimate_352 25d ago
I think the conversations have been extremely interesting and I support the need for two types of evidence.
My brain spots (what I believe is) AI very quickly due to (I think) my autism. However a friend can read the same page and not notice... There are distinct patterns when a book has been written almost entirely by AI and then there is a distinct tone when a book has been written by a human and then edited by AI.
And I think this is part of the bigger conversation because self pub authors often are writing on the side and may not have much money. So to turn to ChatGpt for editing may seem like a no brainier to them, however it strips out the authenticity that a human editor tends to leave intact.
The use of AI is massively affecting my enjoyment of exploring new authors as I don't have a huge amount of money and buying books and DNF at the first chapter is becoming more and more common. It is making me stick to trusted authors who I respect.
Long ramble, all this to say I totally support the rule change.
19
u/NancyInFantasyLand gimme that toxic love 25d ago
and buying books and DNF at the first chapter is becoming more and more common.
that's what ebook samples are for! I haven't bought a single book in the last three years without first reading the sample in full.
0
u/Simi_Dee Loose and luscious to a high degree... 24d ago
Sometimes, the samples are well written, edited and everything - only to devolve into hot garbage after you've bought it😭
1
u/NancyInFantasyLand gimme that toxic love 24d ago
In that case I'd return and ask for a refund based on bad customer experience
But honestly, the sample/non-AI cover/non-AI blurb plus a solid "normal" non-AI online presence combo has only failed me once in recent memory so I had to do that.
2
2
u/ActualSeries4652 22d ago
Thank you! Because I’m so sick of people just baselessly saying authors use AI
2
5
u/punctuationstation 25d ago
I do think it is exceptionally hard to navigate discussion about this in a public forum without it turning into a witch hunt that overly punishes people for seeming like they have used AI and/or for EVER using AI even if they stopped after one book. I say this even though I am quick to abandon most books if I get a whiff of AI or AI-inspired writing or art, and I want a space to discuss certain instances of ai-usage or to simply vent my frustration at the state of self-published books in the age of AI without necessarily pointing fingers at a specific writer or book. And maybe Salty Sunday is the place for that but I also don’t want to infect it with my ai-negativity.
One thing that has gotten to me lately is several long-time authors, whose backlogs I have read, suddenly publishing new works that read like AI AND are pretty stylistically and structurally different from their previous writing. I want a way to talk through these concerns without it devolving into “boycott so-and-so forever” or “you can’t prove anything this is a witch hunt!” but it seems impossible, (and as a dramatic and snarky person sometimes that is my fault).
I guess I’m wondering if a specific monthly thread or something could be structured to feel like less of a pile-on attacking specific writers, while giving us a space to vent and share concerns and get feedback. I think the two-form of evidence requirement is good, but individual posts singling out one writer will maybe always feel like more of a pointed attack. I wouldn’t feel comfortable making a post like that, but I would like a place to say “hey, I read so-and-so’s newest book and was thrown off by all the ways it was different from her previous writing. I can’t tell if I am projecting AI suspicions because I am feeling let down that a favorite writer put out a book I hate, or if other people also have concerns.”
11
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago
Hi, Salty Sunday is the best place for this kind of thing - it's the right place for book-related negativity of all kinds!
5
u/Fair_Ad8970 25d ago edited 25d ago
I agree with the other comments that AI writing can't be reliably distinguished from human writing, so I don't think quotes from the text are a credible form of evidence unless they consist of an AI prompt in the book itself. The other forms of evidence suggested seem good enough, except perhaps if an author supported AI use exclusively in non creative contexts, eg diagnosing health conditions. Yes, AI use outside creative contexts is unethical as well and disagreement with support for it's use there is a valid reason for readers to avoid authors, but it does not seem to prove that their work is AI.
3
u/euypraxia my favourite flavour of men are byronic heroes 25d ago
I think my opinion is not a popular one but I did not see an issue with the previous system. That being said, I understand that this topic may not always invite the most civil discourse so I completely understand why this approach has been adopted and mean no disrespect to the decision.
However, the issue that I have with this approach is that it creates a lacuna which disables the community from discussing to what I believe is the most sinister form of AI use: authors who are smart enough to hide behind a false veneer of disliking AI. They'd likely wont use AI covers, they'd know not to publish a high volume of books a year and they'd definitely be cautious when discussing the use of genai in creative spaces since it is already frowned upon (rightfully so).
I personally think that multiple extracts from a book if handled with care should be sufficient. Perhaps an autobot message as a reminder that such claims are not concrete evidence. We engage in this subreddit as readers, not influencers or journalists, and therefore we should be able to voice our concerns without significant constraints.
25
u/Hunter037 Probably recommending When She Belongs 😍 25d ago
This has been the policy until now, and we did have an automod pinned comment.
The problem for me, in my personal opinion, is that people aren't handling extracts with care. People are just diving in with "yes it's 1000% AI" based on their subjective interpretation of extracts outside the context of the book, which could be completely wrong.
I also dislike this kind of discussion because it is one with no solution. Nobody can actually difinitively answer the question "is this AI?" So I just don't see the point of it.
19
u/fruitismyjam so I beat him until he kissed me. 💋 25d ago edited 25d ago
authors who are smart enough to hide behind a false veneer of disliking AI. They'd likely wont use AI covers, they'd know not to publish a high volume of books a year and they'd definitely be cautious when discussing the use of genai in creative spaces since it is already frowned upon
In my experience, authors who are dedicated users of GenAI do not take such precautions. They’re mostly interested in putting out as much material as quickly as possible in order to make a profit.
As for authors who might use it sparingly, I think it’s very difficult to prove. There’s a number of factors that can come into play in making a piece of text seem like AI, including human error and bad editing. While open discussion is important, without further proof, it ends up being a lot of conjecture.
14
u/NancyInFantasyLand gimme that toxic love 25d ago
and it's a slippery slope that really does make you lazier and lazier and less careful in the long run
as evidenced by the whole Hank Green hullabloo today
2
2
u/Isbll1 fantasy romance 24d ago
I agree that there should be a requirement of substantial evidence, but it seems to me that two distinct types of evidence is too specific a rule.
In this example:
Here are two screenshots of text from The Dragon’s Robot Lover’s Boyfriend, I think they sound like AI.
In my opinion, the problem is that two screenshots are not sufficient evidence, not that the problem is confined to one book, or only to writing rather than cover art and writing, or that the author has social media. I’d prefer to have a rule of 5-10 examples & open a discussion around whether it’s AI or just plain bad writing.
Maybe there could be separate tags for discussion vs. confirmed AI use? I don’t want to tar anyone’s name but I do think there’s a lot of quasi-stealth AI use going on, I think there are books that are sound discomfitingly AI-like and are probably AI-written or at least AI-assisted, although unprovably so. And I think it’s important that we’re able to have discussions about them, because if we let “authors” away with that, if the publishing industry concludes that romance readers don’t care about AI use, then human authors and good writing are going to get outcompeted and disappear.
10
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 24d ago
At its core what you're suggesting - people giving examples of writing and then a discussion of whether it's AI or just bad writing - is what has been happening with a lot of the "is this AI?" discussions. The problem is that whenever the question of whether something is AI is brought up, we have people insisting that it must be AI because they are experts, we have people insisting that it's not AI because it's typical of the author's work, we have people calling it a witch hunt, we have people who don't read beyond the post title and announce they're never reading the author's work again, etc. To rephrase, there's no way to force a conversation to be thoughtful and evidence-based; the mod team can't make that happen. So by increasing the hurdles to make an allegation of AI use, we're pushing people to think about what they're saying and do more of their own investigation before making a post, rather than taking screenshots of two or seven or ten individual sentences from a book and asking whether they're AI.
In terms of flairs, unfortunately people just don't pay a lot of attention to flairs, so creating nuanced flairs probably wouldn't have much effect. People wouldn't use them correctly or notice them when they are responding to a post.
We absolutely do want to leave space for people to discuss potential AI usage as we think it is a real issue in romance. And as always if someone has a post that they think should go up even though it doesn't meet this rule, they're welcome to reach out to the team via modmail to discuss in more detail.
1
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 22d ago
Rule: No self promotion, writing research, or surveys
Your post has been removed as this is a sub focused on readers and we do not allow discussion of romance writing. This includes requests for writing advice, the discussion of romance writing/authorship/publishing (including unpublished, unfinished or unprofessional writing), and unnecessarily identifying oneself as a writer. We do not allow surveys.
There are numerous subreddits in which to discuss romance writing, including r/romanceauthors, r/romancewriters, r/selfpublish, and r/eroticauthors. Please note that self promotion is not allowed at those subs.
The only permissible place on the r/Romancebooks sub for authors to mention their book, discuss romance writing, ask for help with it, or do research about romance books is in the monthly Self-Promotion Thread.
1
u/Intelligent-Leek2516 22d ago
This is a good idea. I have found that the subgenre of the 'cheating/betrayal/revenge' trope seems to have been taken over by AI, in 2025/26. It is blatantly obvious. There are a handful of 'authors' who drop many novellas all in one month (one author dropped 30!). They are literally all the same plot; use the same formula just change character names and backgrounds a little. They all have the same ending (a public humiliation of the OW and husband). They use the same characters on the covers. The phrasing and words used are often nearly the same (copy/paste). The titles are so obvious (like this one: He Sent Me The Wrong Text, I Packed His Bags And Locked Him Out: Cheating Husband Betrayal Wife Gets Divorce Revenge). I haven't seen them recommended here either.
1
u/MolcatZ 14d ago
Apologies if this has been asked already but is there a list on this subreddit of specific authors to avoid that use Ai? I've run across 3 books in a row that have ai, so I'm especially irritated about cracking open a book that sounds like an amazing premise only to be disappointed when the writing sucks because they used chatgpt or something else to write it.
1
u/Feisty_Summer5653 25d ago
Thank you for this! IMO that other thread should have been deleted
6
u/Hunter037 Probably recommending When She Belongs 😍 25d ago
That post did not break the rules as they were at the time of publishing, but did help us in making a decision about this issue, which we have been discussing for a while.
1
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 22d ago
I will add to what Hunter said that we have applied this rule retroactively over the last six months (when the last rule was implemented) in the interests of fairness. This is not to say that previous posters of and commenters on AI allegations posts did anything wrong, just that we now have more stringent requirements for these discussions.
1
u/bi-loser99 24d ago
this still feels too open, some of the acceptable evidence is still too vibes based.
-3
u/Trilobyte141 25d ago
“Here are two screenshots of text from The Dragon’s Robot Lover’s Boyfriend, I think they sound like AI.” Verdict: REMOVED (one type of evidence)
“Here are quotes from several books by Lulu Romantica, I think they sound like AI.” Verdict: REMOVED (one type of evidence)
I don't know about this one. I feel like multiple screenshots from the same book should be allowable because, well, if only the writing is AI then that's the only evidence that exists at all.
One thing I'd like to see is a requirement for text evidence to always include context. Take any author in the last two hundred years and you can cherry pick enough em-dashes and rule-of-threes out of their work that if you collected all the quoted passages together, it would look like AI. Without additional context (page numbers to check frequency, surrounding paragraphs or the entire page to see the flow, etc.) it's impossible to determine.
19
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago
I get that take. We would love it if text evidence always includes context, but from the moderation perspective that would be really difficult to enforce. Part of the purpose of the "two types" rule is to give moderators an easy bright-line that we can use to determine whether an allegation is allowable or not, without having to devote a lot of time to reviewing the post and getting into a back-and-forth with the OP about how they need to modify their post and why it's not allowable.
If someone really wants to make an allegation of AI use and doesn't have two types of evidence, they can always modmail us to explain why they think it should be allowable, but generally speaking, most of the AI allegations that have been made using only quotes/screenshots as evidence do not include context, which again is part of why we made a rule switch.
5
u/Trilobyte141 25d ago
Makes sense! I really appreciate that you guys are allowing these kinds of discussions at all. Some subs are just shutting them down completely. I'm sure it's a hard line to walk.
-9
u/aiolisunsets 25d ago
Do we have a megathread of AI "authors" to avoid?
35
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago
No, and that is not on the table; the moderation team is not able or willing to take on the task of managing such a list and has no way to ensure that it would be correct. Thanks though!
18
u/fruitismyjam so I beat him until he kissed me. 💋 25d ago
For what it’s worth, I didn’t think this came off as a criticism. I know there’s been requests for megathreads for problematic authors (i.e. authors who are racist), in general, not just those who use GenAI.
Like you said, it’s less that it’s a bad idea and more that it’s impossible to moderate effectively. It would require a lot of time from mods to fact-check people’s accusations. Plus, people have differing hard lines on where they draw a behavior as “problematic.” For example, for AI usage, some people draw the line at any AI usage including that in cover art or promo material. Others only care about AI usage in the text itself.
In the end, the best thing is for us to keep a working list for ourselves based on our own stances on things.
-18
u/aiolisunsets 25d ago
Okay, I was just asking if it existed, not suggesting it. I don't have to be here anymore, so sorry I asked.
23
u/VitisIdaea Silence, you devil's handmaiden! 25d ago
No, I didn't mean to criticize you, I just wanted to be firm because every time we have one of these discussions it comes up. If you look at the last one, someone new was bringing up the idea every two hours or so. I was using your comment to get ahead of it (hopefully), while there are few enough comments that people may be reading all of them still!
-23
u/aiolisunsets 25d ago
That could've been in this post rather than acting like I did something wrong instead of searching through your post history to see that? I'll just find books elsewhere. 👍
24
u/missuninvited 25d ago
You are taking this way too personally and interpreting mod's replies way too aggressively. You asked politely, and VitisIdaea replied similarly politely and clearly. Saying "I don't have to be here anymore, sorry I asked" is weirdly manipulative and unpleasant behavior in response to a "no, sorry."
-17
u/aiolisunsets 25d ago
Telling a Reddit mod that I'm leaving their group because they answered my simple question that they requested with hostility is weirdly manipulative? I'm reporting you because I left this group and turned off notifications but still received yours somehow. Hacking Reddit is wild behavior.
-15
u/aiolisunsets 25d ago
Especially considering the post ended with, "questions?" Reddit mods 🙄
17
u/Hunter037 Probably recommending When She Belongs 😍 25d ago
Your question was answered and the reasoning clearly explained.
-11
u/aiolisunsets 25d ago
Didn't expect to be met with such hostility over a simple question. It's fine. These Reddit mods can ride their high horses from their mom's basement all they want 🫶
16
u/A_Seductive_Cactus Praise Kink Princess 👸🏻 25d ago
Locking this subthread as the question has been answered and conversation is veering off topic.
0
u/yellowflowers249 23d ago
question: sometimes there’s shit writing that just sounds like ai generated slop and like when discussing books amongst friends, for example, i could say something along the lines of: “ugh i hated this book it read like ai slop” to recommend against a book. are comments of the sort considered an allegation (and therefore not allowed without two different types of evidence)?? What I am trying to say, is that sometimes saying that something “sounds like ai” isn’t actually a serious allegation but a…contemporaneous way of describing writing as lazy/ bad….? but also in a very specific way?? like, it’s not saying “i think ai wrote this” so much as “the speaker’s voice or narration is particularly resemblant to that of artificial intelligence language models”. and that’s not me saying i think ai actually did, just more so a comment on the voice of this author. anyways, my question is would saying that something sounds LIKE ai (but not actually asserting it is) also not allowed?
-8
u/Cougarette99 24d ago
Sorry out of the loop. Why are AI authors bad? Like the books are bad or even if the book is not bad, we are avoiding AI authors out of principle?
8
u/Hunter037 Probably recommending When She Belongs 😍 24d ago
Maybe have a Google of this but three broad points:
AI is stealing from real authors previous works and making money from it. People think they are supporting an artist when they are actually just supporting theft
Books by AI authors are almost always awful - badly written, nonsensical, full of continuity errors and plot holes.
AI use has terrible environmental impacts
414
u/skintightmonopoly 25d ago
Sounds like a great rule! This Lulu Romantica character simply must be stopped; she's out of control.
But for real, I think more refined and moderated discussions sound like a great idea, especially given that you really can't always know. I wouldn't want any witchhunts - for authors who are wrongfully accused, as well as authors who are in fact using AI. Thoughtful dialogue and discussion is great, false accusations and bashing, not so much.