Ok David. I believe this could be a useful tool. But… I am finding MANY -nearly ALL- sites that I might consider submitting my work to, state “absolutely no AI usage”. They aren’t just talking about AI writing, any amount of AI editing is a red flag. To me it’s simply a checker, like spelling or grammar, but to these folks…. hummm. Not so much of a grey area.
So the thing to remember is that if you use a search engine to research anything or even to find story publishers to submit to, you are using AI.
All search engines at this point have AI embedded. The software you use for literally anything at this point was probably created in part of full using AI. The people who BETA read your stories or who edit your stories or who find your stories on Substack and give you comments could all be using AI as well.
So the “NO AI” police can’t literally mean NO AI; they have to mean something else - but they can’t draw a real, bright line between what’s acceptable and what’s not, because they have no idea what that line is (no one does). Ergo, they just slap NO AI on their sites and punt the ball down the road.
So I ignore those flags instead of trying to interpret them. I know the story, the prose, the vision, the heart of the piece I’m writing is 100% me and 0% anyone or anything else. So if I use AI for checking spelling, or for updating my world-building wiki, or even for identifying where I’m using weak adverbs, then who the fuck are they to tell me that’s wrong and reject my art based on the bullshit bias that they can’t even accurately articulate?
My advice: do what YOU feel is right and let the rest of the world catch up or fall behind.
I probably should clarify - I am not trying to put you on the spot. Just trying to get my own mindset clear for possible future submissions… when (apparently) everyone is saying NO AI.
I hope that soon we'll see a publisher that breaks this trend and says basically - if its good we'll publish it. It's sad to see publications like Clarkeworld of all people ban writing assisted by tools that are straight out of science fiction.
I agree. That was the first site I researched as a potential candidate, but I do use AI “assistance” according to their definition, so I am SOL as they say.
I am in agreement with you on that. So, I queried chatgpt regarding Clarksworld:
“Statement on the Use of “AI” writing tools such as ChatGPT
We will not consider any submissions translated, written, developed, or assisted by these tools. Attempting to submit these works may result in being banned from submitting works in the future.”
I asked to clarify assisted: “For your purposes, the key word is “assisted.” Clarkesworld is not only banning fully AI-written stories; they are saying they will not consider work translated, written, developed, or assisted by AI tools. That is broad enough that using ChatGPT for developmental feedback, line edits, rewriting, translation, or polishing would likely be disqualifying for a Clarkesworld submission.”
That’s a hard line. Not much grey there. I don’t agree with it, but even spell checking, proper grammar, comma usage, punctuation, etc. falls under “assisted”.
Would YOU feel comfortable submitting something to (for example) Clarkesworld, under these conditions?
I've been trying this for a couple of days now. Even if I don't use this for every paragraph, I'm learning to recognize useless or redundant words, and as a teaching tool, this is wonderful. Love it!
Ok David. I believe this could be a useful tool. But… I am finding MANY -nearly ALL- sites that I might consider submitting my work to, state “absolutely no AI usage”. They aren’t just talking about AI writing, any amount of AI editing is a red flag. To me it’s simply a checker, like spelling or grammar, but to these folks…. hummm. Not so much of a grey area.
So the thing to remember is that if you use a search engine to research anything or even to find story publishers to submit to, you are using AI.
All search engines at this point have AI embedded. The software you use for literally anything at this point was probably created in part of full using AI. The people who BETA read your stories or who edit your stories or who find your stories on Substack and give you comments could all be using AI as well.
So the “NO AI” police can’t literally mean NO AI; they have to mean something else - but they can’t draw a real, bright line between what’s acceptable and what’s not, because they have no idea what that line is (no one does). Ergo, they just slap NO AI on their sites and punt the ball down the road.
So I ignore those flags instead of trying to interpret them. I know the story, the prose, the vision, the heart of the piece I’m writing is 100% me and 0% anyone or anything else. So if I use AI for checking spelling, or for updating my world-building wiki, or even for identifying where I’m using weak adverbs, then who the fuck are they to tell me that’s wrong and reject my art based on the bullshit bias that they can’t even accurately articulate?
My advice: do what YOU feel is right and let the rest of the world catch up or fall behind.
/soapbox off
I probably should clarify - I am not trying to put you on the spot. Just trying to get my own mindset clear for possible future submissions… when (apparently) everyone is saying NO AI.
I hope that soon we'll see a publisher that breaks this trend and says basically - if its good we'll publish it. It's sad to see publications like Clarkeworld of all people ban writing assisted by tools that are straight out of science fiction.
I agree. That was the first site I researched as a potential candidate, but I do use AI “assistance” according to their definition, so I am SOL as they say.
I am in agreement with you on that. So, I queried chatgpt regarding Clarksworld:
“Statement on the Use of “AI” writing tools such as ChatGPT
We will not consider any submissions translated, written, developed, or assisted by these tools. Attempting to submit these works may result in being banned from submitting works in the future.”
I asked to clarify assisted: “For your purposes, the key word is “assisted.” Clarkesworld is not only banning fully AI-written stories; they are saying they will not consider work translated, written, developed, or assisted by AI tools. That is broad enough that using ChatGPT for developmental feedback, line edits, rewriting, translation, or polishing would likely be disqualifying for a Clarkesworld submission.”
That’s a hard line. Not much grey there. I don’t agree with it, but even spell checking, proper grammar, comma usage, punctuation, etc. falls under “assisted”.
Would YOU feel comfortable submitting something to (for example) Clarkesworld, under these conditions?
Well don’t use AI assisted search for research then. So no search engines!
I've been trying this for a couple of days now. Even if I don't use this for every paragraph, I'm learning to recognize useless or redundant words, and as a teaching tool, this is wonderful. Love it!
Now, what if I wanted to try this but not have flashbacks to WWF's Attitude Era...?
hehe -- just tell the AI to run it in whatever style you want.
I’ll see how it goes and let you know!