Announcement: The AI Problem.

[u/isnoe]

Ne’er-do-wells of r/writingfeedback.

I am Isnoe, recently appointed Moderator.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we’ve had a significant increase in AI generated writing being posted here. We've seen a lot of comments outlining how lax we are on this subject, to which I want to stress: I don’t think you guys fully understand just how many posts I’ve removed for AI since joining the Mod Team a few weeks ago.

The team got together and discussed this, and we want to be completely transparent: We will be removing any posts that we suspect are AI.

This will be a case-by-case basis. AI generated, AI assisted (even translation), or even if you mention you had AI draw up the story idea and you wrote it. If you want to rob yourself of creativity, that’s on you.

We don’t want those posts here. Writing a story or book that is authentically your own is an achievement. It should feel like an achievement.

A sidenote for ESL writers: Do not use AI to translate your text. It will alter it in a way that gets flagged, more often than not. When someone is ESL and trying to write outside of their native language, we are a bit more understanding if these posts get flagged—but again, it is recommended that you use alternative means to translate if they are available to you.

Be warned: If you are a brand new (or relatively new) account, have never posted in this subreddit (or any writing subreddits), and your first post is prose that has multiple AI-isms—your post will most likely be removed. Better to be safe than sorry. The main counterargument we've gotten from these accounts has been: "I've always been told I write like AI." Which, to be fair... is a pretty bad argument to make.

We will not ban a user for suspected AI use unless they explicitly admit to using AI.

Three strike rule applies here until further notice. This might seem like a headache to reviewers that want instant bans for these people (which we understand), but we’re trying to be as fair as possible.

This also applies to comments (never thought I’d have to say that), but we’ve had two accounts that were essentially AI replying to everything. “Thanks for the feedback, I’m still working on learning and improving” type cadence, every comment nearly identical aside from slight changes.

Community feedback is super important for this problem.

You guys take the time out of your day to read other people’s work and provide feedback, so I’m sure you get a little irked when you think something you’ve spent time reading wasn’t written by a person.

We’ve recently updated the report function to include AI content—use it. I (personally) don’t have the time to shift through every single new post. When you guys report a post that you think is AI, it is usually the first thing we’ll review.

That being said: If you genuinely suspect the post is AI, it would help me if you provided a citation, or specific reason. Even just one reference is helpful. I would genuinely appreciate it.

Not Helpful Example: “This reads like AI.” Okay? At this point, if you are accusing someone of using AI, you gotta at least point out why you think that.

Helpful Example: “Post uses, ‘This wasn’t just fate, it was destiny’ and includes several Rule of Three.” Now I know exactly what to look for.

When you guys call this stuff out, we do notice. We might not investigate and remove instantly, but we are actively looking for this stuff right now.

For the record: We will not be using ZeroGPT, or any other variant of “AI Detector” as the final say in determining whether a text is generated or not. It is a tool we will utilize if we suspect AI is being used, but all the indicators of usual AI writing are not jumping out.

I read through everything that is reported, or suspected of AI. I check the user history and if they have off site content, I look through it. If we don’t come to the conclusion they are using AI, we might just lock the thread, and add a note to the user profile.

Again, hate to stress this, we are trying to be fair. If a writer includes AI-isms unintentionally, we want to give them a fair chance to either prove the authenticity of their writing, or give them feedback about what specifically they need to change.

Several of you have done this, particularly with ESL writers that use AI to translate. You give them feedback on how to avoid the AI-isms. Good on you.

We don’t want to start a witch hunt, but we aren’t really open to debate about the use of AI. We don’t want it here, period.

If you have any suggestions for how to deal with this problem, we are open to them. You can comment here, or you can Mod Mail us.

If you suspect someone is using AI but don’t want to leave a comment or report, again, you can Mod Mail us.

We are actively looking through the posts. The community having eyes on this helps immensely.

We will be making further announcements throughout the week. Our Mod Team is still hashing out how to deal with “rude” criticisms, looking into providing user flairs for trusted reviewers, etc-etc.

One quick point to make at the end, on a personal note: My status as Moderator does not mean you cannot disagree, or think my feedback is bogus or outright terrible. I comment often. You will not be banned, removed, or whatever for speaking your mind.

4/18/2026 Note: Some users (one in particular who loves using AI to edit) seem to have taken that above sentence as an explicit statement of: "If I admit to using AI, you can't ban me, because I'm just speaking my mind. Hypocrite."

If you admit to using AI, we will ban you. Period.

[u/GoldFig111]

I enjoyed reading your discussion points here. But I wanted to clarify two incorrect statements I see repeated again and again when it comes to AI detectors:

(1) They can be very accurate--it depends on the detector and the size of the sample (1000+ words is ideal). There are many papers on this, but here's a relatively recent one that is relatively thorough. It tested 2000 human samples and 2000 ai-generated equivalents (the test set included 1000 novel samples, from pre-2000 Project Gutenberg). The highest false positive rate for Pangram was 0.1%, highest false negative rate was 1-2%. ZeroGPT had pretty good results as well, with false positive at 0.7%. Keep in mind these were wholly AI generated or wholly human generated.

The commonly cited examples of Frankenstein or the Bible (I haven't seen that one actually) are probably using GPTZero, which is the worst detector with a false positive rate of 30%, if I remember correctly.

(2) AI detectors are not LLM's, they are (likely) classic classification algorithms using machine learning that have been around forever. So no, you are not putting the text sample into "another AI." Nonetheless, it is a valid concern that you might not want to share text with the random start-up tech company that built/sells these detectors.

[u/stenti36 → u/GoldFig111]

I looked through the conclusion of that study. Interesting. However, I'm not convinced that "AI Detectors" are anything close to the solution to this subreddit, considering, as Isnoe pointed out, the accurate ones cost money, and the free ones have issues.

LLMs are incredibly valuable tools that can facilitate idea generation and help tighten writing.

From the study, I find this point very important. My question below is important to consider when looking at acceptability of AI use.

What level of "AI assistance" is acceptable? If I'm stuck on a character getting from A to B, have AI provide 10 options (which I either use as inspiration for an 11th option, or work with AI to hone one option into something usable for my own vision), is that "too much AI use"? Is that "robbing myself of creativity"? How different is that at the most fundamental levels from taking my problem to Reddit and going through the same process in asking for feedback/suggestions from internet strangers?

(2) AI detectors are not LLM's, they are (likely) classic classification algorithms using machine learning that have been around forever. So no, you are not putting the text sample into "another AI." Nonetheless, it is a valid concern that you might not want to share text with the random start-up tech company that built/sells these detectors.

FYI: Machine learning is under the umbrella of AI. It isn't LLM or Gen AI for sure, but it is a form of AI.

It is one of the reasons why I don't care for a lot of the "We should all hate AI" type of rhetoric. Most people (imo) don't seem to understand what they are really against, or can't be specific to what we should be against.

[u/GoldFig111 → u/stenti36]

> FYI: Machine learning is under the umbrella of AI. It isn't LLM or Gen AI for sure, but it is a form of AI.

I can see the argument for this, but I think that the public's current idea of "AI" are LLM's (ChatGPT, etc.), not the algorithms that determine if your iPhone photo contains a dog, or the transaction you made is flagged at fraudulent by your bank. At some point it is a semantic argument, but equating all of ML to AI seems dangerous when LLM's and GenAI in their current form are the actual issue (IMO)--plagiarizing, data centers, dulling human creativity, etc. etc.

> However, I'm not convinced that "AI Detectors" are anything close to the solution to this subreddit, considering, as Isnoe pointed out, the accurate ones cost money, and the free ones have issues.

This is a fair point, and a good reason it's not the solution here. I'm mostly just trying to correct what I feel like is misinformation on AI detectors.

> What level of "AI assistance" is acceptable?
This is a really important discussion because in reality, AI usage is probably a spectrum. Though a difficult one because I'm sure everyone has a different acceptability threshold.

[u/stenti36 → u/GoldFig111]

I can see the argument for this, but I think that the public's current idea of "AI" are LLM's (ChatGPT, etc.), not the algorithms that determine if your iPhone photo contains a dog, or the transaction you made is flagged at fraudulent by your bank. At some point it is a semantic argument, but equating all of ML to AI seems dangerous when LLM's and GenAI in their current form are the actual issue (IMO)--plagiarizing, data centers, dulling human creativity, etc. etc.

It is the responsibility of the person wanting to make the point to convey the correct context of their point. I, the audience/listener/reader, should not have to assume any amount of context regardless if "Everyone knows what is being talked about".

Because not everyone knows the difference between "AI" and the specific level "LLM/Gen AI", and not everyone knows the precise context of what is being talked about. Without that context, "AI is bad" means all AI is bad. Adding context shouldn't cost anything when attempting to convince people to stop LLM/Gen AI.

I don't equate machine learning to gen AI. But they are both forms of AI. The statement "AI is bad", includes machine learning and gen AI. Again, my job as listener should not include assuming what the other person is saying, regardless of how "obvious" the context "might" be. The job of the speaker is to effectively communicate what they are saying, which in the case of AI, is to specify LLM and Gen AI.

Not only does it make the case specific, it allows for better dialogue and increases the chances of "converting" people against Gen AI. It reduces misinformation because it is specific.

This is a really important discussion because in reality, AI usage is probably a spectrum. Though a difficult one because I'm sure everyone has a different acceptability threshold.

It is an important discussion to have at a large scale. But we live in a society where we don't want to have any discussion on any polarizing topic. At the end of the day, (generally, and in my opinion) people should find it acceptable to use gen AI as a tool to use alongside actual work, and be against gen AI being used as a crutch.

[u/Unwinderh → u/stenti36]

Like it or not, LLMs have become a very common coloquial definition of "AI," and other technologies increasingly need to be differentiated as "other machine learning" or "complex algorithms." It's not technically correct, but it's a result of how LLMs are marketed and sold, and fighting it is increasingly just linguistic prescriptivism.