Welcome, please read my pinned post ā¤µļø Asks are queued but open for general questions/thoughts. ANON CASE REVIEWS TEMPORARILY CLOSED. DM only. Editor. Avid HP, LoTR, Marvel and Star Wars fan. Iām sick of āauthorsā hiding AI use, I (try to) recommend good shit. My public bookmarks are ONLY about those who refuse to play by the rules despite being asked to. The solution is simple: own it.
Today I received an Anon ask that made me reflect on many things. One is that apparently there are conversations being had about me in places where Iām not. Thatās okay, thatās the internet. I have my own hangouts. But this ask did make me wonder (not just, Anon, donāt worry) whatās being said about AI fanfic in places where other fanfic writers than my own trusted bunch come together.
Obviously I know what the general opinion is, but Iād be interested to hear from you who follow/visit this blog specifically, now that this blog has (apparently) become a topic of discussion. So letās try to do something thatās not just āBex catching crooksā for a change.
Tell me:
What are your reasons for not wanting to read AI fanfic? Why do you dislike it? What pisses you off? Are you a reader/writer or both?
Or (yeah, if this is how you feel then I do wanna hear this):
What are your reasons for being fine with AI fanfic? If you donāt mind it being generated, tell me why? Do you think fandom should welcome AI use? Are you a reader/writer or both?
Any length. Any opinion will be treated respectfully. Weāre aiming for conversation here, folks. Not bashing. So drop me an (Anon) ask starting with āAI fanficā or send me a DM starting with the same line, and say as much or as little as you want. Iāll make a long post with the answers on Tuesday 10/7/2025. DMs sent will never have usernames revealed.
Remember asks and DMs are open for general thoughts or rants or opinions or whatever. Some people have already sent some that require no input from me. Iāve got two queued. I donāt know if inviting conversation is the kind of āchangeā my todayās polite and thoughtful Anon had in mind (and Iām not done thinking about your ask), but Iāll start here and weāll see how it goes.
Have a good evening everyone, remember to hug your pets.
Thanks to everyone whoās already sent in some thoughts, I had some interesting things to read this morning.
A small reminder: while youāre welcome to rant about me to me, this try for conversation asked a set of specific questions, none of which included āwhat do you think of bookmarkburnā. Youāre welcome to tell me. Just not as a part of this specific pool. So even though some responses talking mainly about me have been sent in under āAI fanficā they will not be included in next weekās post because the purpose of that post is to share readersā and writersā thoughts about AI fanfiction specifically. These Bex-centered responses will not be ignored, theyāll just be addressed separately. Hope that works for yāall who sent these.
I'm so glad they got Ted Chiang -- a wonderful writer of science fiction and thinker about technology, in my opinion -- to write this essay. My favorite line was this:
Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium.
This article in the New Yorker is over a year old and still as relevant as ever. At this moment there is no paywall. I strongly recommend yāall give it a thorough read. Ted Chiang wrote āStory of Your Lifeā, the source material for Denis Villeneuveās 2016 movie Arrival. Which is, surprise surprise, about language and communication.
Here is a great quote from the article:
Many novelists have had the experience of being approached by someone convinced that they have a great idea for a novel, which they are willing to share in exchange for a fifty-fifty split of the proceeds. Such a person inadvertently reveals that they think formulating sentences is a nuisance rather than a fundamental part of storytelling in prose. Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium. But the creators of traditional novels, paintings, and films are drawn to those art forms because they see the unique expressive potential that each medium affords.
lmao walshpilled just dropped a 60k chapter in four daysā¦ acting like they donāt use ai is so funny itās almost sad
Yes, walshpilled does not cease to amaze me. I looked at only Chapter 1 of āThe Sicilian Defenseā and immediately saw the same exact heavy hedging as ever, same patterned paragraphsā¦ Particularly enjoyed āsomething [verb]ed or something-edā; this construction appears 23+ times in just Chapter 1. Iāve even been kind enough to pull up some examplezzz! I love pulling up statistics when itās time to dissect AI slop. The output, without fail, is so algorithmical! Anyway,
āsomething that was not quite nervesā
āSomething twisted in her chestā
āSomething flickered in her eyesā
āSomething crackedā
āSomething mischievous twisted in Samiraās chestā
āsomething caught on something inside herā
āSomething about the way...ā
āsomething hollow ache in her chestā
āSomething close to amusementā
āsomething close to intrigueā
āSomething flickered in Emeryās gazeā
āsomething dangerously close to intrigueā
Why are we not ever committing to what the emotion actually is? And once again, āthe kind that/ofā¦āĀ appears 15+ times:
āthe kind that made her stomach twistā
āthe kind that felt like a slow suffocationā
āthe kind that made her head spinā
āthe kind of space reserved for donorsā
āthe kind of soulless spaceā
āthe kind of lookā
āthe kind of chaosā
To avoid being redundant here (see: my analysis of āOne Of These Nightsā), Iāll literally just list the rest of the phrases, and you can go through them on AO3 if youād so desire. āAs if/as thoughā appears 31+ times, ābefore she couldā¦ā appears 12+ times, ālike it was/like she wasā appears 27+ timesā¦ Iāll kindly remind you, this is all just about Chapter 1 still.
Now, onto a more personal topic: I want to see the world where a 25-year-old assistantās and 37-year-old chess championās internal narrative structures are completely identical. These women should think, observe, and process the world fundamentally differently; however, their internal voices use the same sentence complexity, or lack thereof, the same hedging patterns, the same physical staging vocabulary, and the same metaphor types. There are no distinguishing markers between characters; particularly glaring in a fic where understanding each womanās distinct perspective should be central to the narrative. No age-appropriate language differences asides from texting manner in the latter chapters (only skimmed for now), no palpable class/wealth vocabulary distinctions, no profession-specific thought patterns, no distinct nothingā¦ Writers typically differentiate POV characters through vocabulary choices, sentence length, internal rhythmāfactually everything. Because they are vastly different people. This fic shows none of that differentiation and reads to me as the same generic person was just inserted for both women. Logically speaking, if we are striving for hyperrealism with all this worldbuilding, why do these women have no personality?
The fundamental issue, of course, isnāt simply that Samira and Emery sound identical, because I do not want to allow for this to get sweeped under the rug as āteehee iām just not a good enough writer :3ā or āi do this for free ergo i will not put in that much effortā or any other cheap copout nonsense similar to that. Neither woman feels like a fully realized person. Both characters are collections of surface-level traits and mechanical reactions. Iām sure youāve got an inkling as to why that is so!
Writers, you know, real writers, they spend time genuinely inhabiting a characterās perspective, especially if they are the focal figures of the story, and make sure that character develops organic complexity. AI cannot genuinely explore these depths. It can simulate the surface markers of characterization, but it has no access to embodied reality. It produces characters who perform actions and experience generic emotional responses, but lack the first step, the skeleton, and all those bones and ligaments only come from a writer truly asking: Who is this person? How does her specific life experience impact how she sees this moment? What does she notice that no one else would? And so on, and forth, and around, and through.
The result is characters who exist as flat narrative functions. Samira needs to be talented but overlooked so the plot can happen, and Emery needs to be dominant but intrigued so the romance can happen. Beyond these functional requirements, both women are empty vessels being moved through scenes while experiencing the same rotation of throat-tightening, heat-crawling, stomach-dropping reactions.
This is why the romance feels fucking soulless despite the explicit content. Two 100% interchangeable templates. Even more so, a lesbian writer genuinely exploring these characters, who are women, would give them texture, specificity, contradictionā¦ The characters lack depth because they werenāt genuinely written and explored. They were generated through algorithmic pattern-matching that can simulate competent prose but does not have the key, which is called āusing your brainā, that could access the deeper works.
And thatās a topic I could delve deeper into, but anyway. Back to the algorithm, baby. The text is, once again, same as in āOne Of These Nightsā, full of perception filters that create distance between theā¦ whatever experience is had, without actually naturally inhabiting a characterās perspective. The consistently ātoldā narrative; indeed, the density here is to be noted! āShe could [verb]ā holds 52+ instances, āshe seemed toā, 18+ instances, āshe tried toā, 24+ instances, āshe forced herself toā, 11+ instances.Ā
The text also relies on a few physical descriptors that cycle repetitively. These mechanically staged reactions appear in literally painfully predictable patterns every 2-3 paragraphs during emotional scenes:
Throat (14+ instances):
āHer throat went dryā (3x)
āthroat workingā (2x)
āthroat went tightā (2x)
āthroat catchingā
āthroat worked, a visible swallowā
Heat/temperature (18+ instances):
āHeat crawled up Samiraās faceā
āheat crept up the back of her neckā
āheat rising in her chestā
ācheeks heatingā
āHeat crept up her neckā
āskin warming in the small closetā
Pulse/heart (11+ instances):
āHer pulse spikedā
āpulse ticked fasterā
āpulse thrummingā
āpulse jump traitorouslyā
āHer pulse climbedā
āheart was hammeringā
Stomach (9+ instances):
āstomach twistā
āstomach flippedā
āstomach droppedā
āstomach turnedā
āstomach bottomed outā
Jaw/teeth (8+ instances):
ājaw clenchedā
ājaw flexedā
ājaw tightenedā
āteeth grindā
āgrinding natureā
The [dialogue] > [tag with adverb] > [character gesture] > [internal reaction] pattern repeats with minimal variation throughout the almost 40,000 words. Characters also perform the same gestures repeatedly during conversation!
ācrossed armsā (7x)
ātilted headā (11x)
āarched/raised eyebrowā (8x)
ājaw clenched/flexedā (11x)
Now, this was my favorite bit. This is where the uncanny valley, like, really lives. Because youāre reading, and reading, and reading, and thenā¦ Fuck, pattern recognition is a hell of a drug! Many paragraphs follow a template of [Physical reaction], [Question] and/or [Realization] and [Interpretation]. Remarkable consistency here. Iāve provided examples, because Iām a very sweet person that way.
Example 1: Her pulse spiked. [Physical reaction] This was her opponent? [Question] She had no idea who the woman was. [Realization] Something about that alone prickled under Samiraās skin. [Interpretation]
Example 2: Samiraās throat went dry. [Physical reaction] Was that a dig? [Question] Was she being mocked? [Question] This woman did not know her. [Realization] How could she possibly have expectations about her play three moves in? [Interpretation]
Example 3: Her stomach twisted. [Physical reaction] What was with chess today? [Question] First this Robby guy, and now her boss rattling off about a charity tournament. [Realization] The overlap made her head spin. [Interpretation]
Example 4: Heat crept up her neck. [Physical reaction] Who the hell did she think she was? [Question] She was fifteen minutes late and still in no rush to start. [Realization] Intimidation prickled down her spine, but annoyance followed right behind. [Interpretation]
Example 5: Her chest tightened. [Physical reaction] Why were they all staring? [Question] It was one table in a sea of tables. [Realization] She told herself they would move on, but the crowd did not thin. [Interpretation]
Example 6: Samiraās pulse climbed. [Physical reaction] A grandmaster. Whatever that meant. [Question/Realization] All she knew was she had been shoved into the seat because her bossās martinis had won the night before. [Realization] Now she was about to be thrown to someone who would have no idea she had only ever played her father in a basement and strangers in the park.[Interpretation]
Example 7: Emeryās stomach dropped. [Physical reaction] What was happening? [Question] She had not felt this disheveled or shaken in years. [Realization] She was a mess. [Interpretation]
Example 8: Emeryās grip tightened on the wheel. [Physical reaction] Where had Samira been? [Question] In Brazil, at least, there had been Norhav. [Realization] Beyond that, they were all dull and predictable. [Interpretation]
Example 9: Her hands were trembling. [Physical reaction] What was she doing? [Question] She hadnāt felt this disheveled or shaken in years. [Realization] She was a mess. [Interpretation]
Isnāt it crazy to see all of that laid out? When you can, like, really see it? A lot of paragraphs also follow a 3-4 sentence template of [Action], [Interpretation] and/or [Elaboration], then [Result]. Examples are as follows:
Example 1: Samira fought the urge to flip the board in front of her as the man across from her glanced down at his watch for the third time in ten minutes. [Action] She knew the type. [Interpretation] Men who came down to Washington Square Park on their lunch breaks from their soul-sucking corporate jobs, desperate to prove something to themselves by beating a stranger at chess. [Elaboration] Every time, they left Samiraās table with mumbled insults and half-hearted jabs. [Result]
Example 2: She felt it before she saw it, someone watching her from afar. [Action] It was not in the usual way, either. [Interpretation] Most spectators came and went, nodding in mild approval or snapping a photo before moving on. [Elaboration] This man lingered. [Result]
Example 3: Samira froze as the wind cut across the square again, icy on her face. [Action] She could still hear the sound of traffic passing by and the rustle of chess clocks being slapped a few tables down. [Interpretation] It all felt muffled now. [Result]
Example 4: Her pulse spiked as the questions blurred in her head. [Action] They crowded the table, shoving microphones in her face while leaning over the toppled pieces. [Elaboration] One manās hand closed around her arm to turn her for a picture, and she flinched so hard she shot up from her chair. [Result]
Example 5: Emery gripped the wheel of her Mercedes with one hand, the other drumming against her thigh as she threaded her way through Manhattan traffic. [Action] Heather had sent a driver, the usual bullshit song and dance, but Emery had waved him off without a second thought. [Elaboration] If the fundraiser turned out as dreadful as she expected, she wanted the freedom to slip away without explanation. [Result]
Example 6: Heat crawled up Samiraās face, but she shoved it down hard, leaning forward to nudge her bishop into play. [Action] The crowd stirred louder than before, their whispers rising to more steady conversation. [Elaboration] She got the strange sense they were talking about her. [Result]
Example 7: A horn blared a few blocks away as a dog barked. [Action] Somewhere behind her, a child screamed while his parents tossed him in the air. [Elaboration] Samira leaned back in her chair and let the noise of the city drown out the part of her brain that wanted to feel something. [Result]
Example 8: Samira hesitated, but stepped forward to take them. [Action] Her guard cracked just slightly at the mention of another woman, Dana. [Interpretation] That alone disarmed her more than she expected. [Result]
Example 9: The cardstock was thick and clean, the kind that meant someone had spent real money on it. [Action] She flipped one over in her hand, eyes scanning the lines. [Elaboration] There was a tactile reality to it. [Interpretation] These werenāt fakes or a common scam she saw all over the city. [Result]
These structures repeat across hundreds of paragraphs.
What makes walshpilled such a con artist is not any single repetitive pattern in isolation, itās, and Iāll gladly repeat myself, literally the convergence and density of multiple formulaic structures occurring simultaneously across 40,000 words. Consider the mathematical fucking improbability: a text that maintains identical sentence complexity across two distinct POV characters, while also cycling through the same 8-10 emotional descriptors every 2-3 paragraphs, while also adhering to paragraph templates, while also deploying the exact same 12 physical reaction cues in predictable rotation, while also inserting hedging qualifiers at consistent intervals, while also filtering every observation through perception verbs. This literally just defies organic human composition.Ā
Human writers inevitably introduce variance. We donāt naturally maintain algorithmic consistency across tens of thousands of words because our attention, energy and creative choices fluctuate. The probability that a human writer would unconsciously maintain this level of pattern fidelity is at one fat fucking zero. You know who excels at this, though?
AI models!
They maintain stable patterns because theyāre optimizing for coherence within learned parameters. They are not creating from embodied human experience. And theyāre only getting better, which means walshpilled will just get away with it and continue her cloutfarming streak with a little pep in her walk.
But to whoever actually believes walshpilled is writing all of this herself and not just tampering with prompts: Iām so sorry.
This post is from someone whoās had an AI-centered blog before me. Iāve never heard of the āauthorā analyzed here nor do I have any interest in them. But for yāall wondering what in-depth analysis looks like, I suggest you check out the āuncanny valley/pattern recognitionā part of this post. What happens there is very similar to what my working day looks like: manual analysis supported by non AI-tools.
Iād like to highlight this extremely well articulated part right here:
What makes [AO3 handle] such a con artist is not any single repetitive pattern in isolation, itās, and Iāll gladly repeat myself, literally the convergence and density of multiple formulaic structures occurring simultaneously across 40,000 words. Consider the mathematical fucking improbability: a text that maintains identical sentence complexity across two distinct POV characters, while also cycling through the same 8-10 emotional descriptors every 2-3 paragraphs, while also adhering to paragraph templates, while also deploying the exact same 12 physical reaction cues in predictable rotation, while also inserting hedging qualifiers at consistent intervals, while also filtering every observation through perception verbs. This literally just defies organic human composition.Ā
Human writers inevitably introduce variance. We donāt naturally maintain algorithmic consistency across tens of thousands of words because our attention, energy and creative choices fluctuate. The probability that a human writer would unconsciously maintain this level of pattern fidelity is at one fat fucking zero. You know who excels at this, though?
AI models!
They maintain stable patterns because theyāre optimizing for coherence within learned parameters. They are not creating from embodied human experience.
Naturally youāll find this same kind of patterned consistency in shorter works too. The above is also the kind stuff that AI models, when fed a piece of human writing like a chapter draft, are PROGRAMMED to rework the text into. Thatās what I mean when I say I believe many AI-users write for themselves first, but what gets uploaded onto AO3 contains too much of the above. Itās just coded M&Mās imposed onto a text. And the āI absolutely did not use AIā folks just donāt get that itās visible.
Remember how I said some time ago that people sometimes are just so predictable? That they nearly always seem to do exactly what youād expect them to do once they realize theyāve been found out rather than just own up to it? Or even as I said in a comment to a user who did thankfully admit it in the end and tag their work, people always think their AI fic is the one that canāt possibly have any give-aways? But that even then people need to be given a chance to do the right thing?
I am tired.
So, hereās a case of someone having several chances and choosing to skip each and every one. Not a deep dive, but a step-by-step.
A few weeks ago someone dropped me a line regarding a fic. I like Dramione, so I took a look, concluded record-quickly it had gone through AI because seriously now (or, an explosion of markers present throughout the very first chapter alone, and on and on it went, worse and worse). The further I read, the more painfully obvious it became to the point that I could predict what GPT4 would do next when used for this type of dark fanfiction. Did it? Yeah, that specific model had a total formatting compulsion. Iāve got docs upon docs just on this crap alone.
So I saw everything from coded phrasings to diction pairs to the overall underlying structure to the tension scales and GPT over-the-top cliffhangers and pre-prog beat drops, yada yada yada. The stuff that AI (and many readers too) thinks looks really good and flows nicely and just works perfectly so letās turn it up. Coincidentally the stuff people donāt realize gives it away in that kinda package (yes, human writing can also flow nicely and even work perfectly, you already know what Iām gonna say here). This correlated very closely with what GPTās been spitting out all damn spring when prompted for dark Dramione. Think Dramione M&Mās, same candies appearing in the same way across works within a selected suitcase. When GPT is prompted to work within a specific suitcase, it (simplified!) quickly scrapes stuff corresponding to that specific suitcase. Fast as possible. Then puts it into one of its typical pre-coded forms topped off with its preferred descriptions. Thatās (simplified!) how we end up seeing the same stuff over and over again. Reuse reuse reuse.
The user had also received comments drawing their attention to one common GPT4 tell (again, in context: Alone? Might not mean anything. Constantly repeated together with a huge load of other M&Mās? Yeah. Thatās AI right there).
But. Instead of saying they were using AI for their story and hadnāt realized how much it was changing stuff (if theyād actually written first, which theyāre saying, and whether this is true or not doesnāt matter because in my opinion even if there is a draft, that draft cannot correspond to whatās on AO3), they said yeah Iām just noticing that now and I donāt like it, gonna edit.
My partner left them word that it was clear theyād used AI and told them to tag the work. Mentioned just one specific factor out of many.
What did the user do?
They didnāt reply. Instead, they immediately hid the work. And so, we wait. I had hopes theyād bring the work back with a note because the story wasnāt actually half bad since people had been enjoying it. The premise was cool. But did it come back with a note specifying theyād used AI?
Nope.
So here it is, now with comment moderation (totally fine), and I read it and once again it lit up like Times Square. All the stuff no one mentioned to them. Word countās still the same. No need to go through each line with a magnifying glass because it lit up like Times Square. Thereās a note talking about how English isnāt their first language and theyāve fixed grammar etc etc and somewhere it said something about reworking old works. But there was nothing wrong with the grammar here in the first place. Come on, why would there be?
So I thought Iād drop them a line myself this time. Tell them what Iād seen before. Tell them what Iād gathered. Give my partner a break. Give the user the chance their readers too had already given them.
But what did I come across?
Someone else had already put two and two together after they hid the work. Gone and given them a piece of their mind. This I donāt approve of. We can be angry and frustrated, but we do not go around screaming at people. I donāt care who this was, just donāt do it again. You wanna talk, talk, but donāt just swear at them. Thanks. You get to be pissed off, but adults behave themselves even when they have every reason to be pissed off. Iām pissed off. I still have to try to be fair and explanatory when I speak to someone.
But what else did I see?
Appalled at the accusation. This is an old story reworked (this may very well be true, but that doesnāt change the fact that whatās been uploaded to AO3 has been AIād). In my line of work, AI is a no go. English is not my first language and that is exactly how I write (for one of the works I looked at which isnāt up anymore, I remember thinking it read like that, but itās not this one). If you knew me personally and have had the choice to ask my literary professors, you would know because they also have the exact same comments about my literary works back when I was still in university before ChatGPT rose to fame (Iām sure this professor stuff is true, but these notes wonāt be the things that gave the fic away as AI. Again, come on. How could they be?) Then, back then, I also had to cross oceans and go over heights to prove that I do not use AI (but they just said this was before it became a thing? Hmm). I know for myself that I did not (ā¦) use AI in crafting stories and take credit from it (As is their prerogative to keep saying). I am one with you against AI in whatever form that may be, to cause harm to other people because I am one of those victims.
Well.
Powerful speech, I gotta say. Iād even hand it to them ā if they werenāt someone with icing and crumbs all over their fingers and coincidentally thereās a palm-sized piece missing from the birthday cake.
Still. Thatās a speech. It gives me pause. So I sit there and think about these words. Look at the story. Read random chapters again. Nope, itās still there. I try to find a way several people could be this wrong. Nope, itās everywhere. I look at what Iāve got. Look at the sum. And the sum is still so positive, there is no question whatsoever to me. I look at this long reply again.
Then what do I see?
Someone else had commented too. Someone whoād apparently read their work before, a lot it looks like. Theyād also noticed this one same thing that other readers had been commenting on, on the story in question, and theyād done a little digging, and realized it was a tell. Then (CP): You say these are your old works, but you never said that anywhere in any of the notes because I thought it was weird you were writing so well and so fast flawlessly when youād said english isnāt your first language. If authors leave and come back they say this so people can find them and old readers can say hi (Iād agree, but this isnāt any kind of law so it doesnāt actually mean anything). But youāre just incog (incognito, I guess). Thereās nothing anywhere. Soā¦ what was your old ao3 and wattpad? Even if youāve deleted them, itās easy to check
Okay, so thatās a LOT of digging all right. Someoneās smelling something. But I actually think itās a fair question if someoneās said (my words) Iāve been around forever, this is all old, Iām just rejoining in 2025. This author has published ~400K in six months.
But the author hasnāt replied to this. Itās been +10 days. In the meantime, theyāve (re)published more than one story. Maybe they missed this comment. Impossible to say. Still doesnāt change a thing. Uploading old works onto AO3 is one thing. Uploading old works into ChatGPT and putting its produce onto AO3 is another.
So here we are, Saturday afternoon. Been checking checking checking. No mention of AI use. Iāve sceenshot my partnerās comments with dates and times (and some other comments) to have on file but had them delete their originals off AO3 because I think itās safe to say this personās gonna have a crap enough time as it is when they realize my partner wasnāt just a troll, and they donāt need an AI thread on their fic. But thatās on them. Theyāve chosen to go about it this way ā not respond to the message with actual pinpointing, then hid the work, revealed it again without any mention of AI having been involved even though itās embarrassingly clear to me (and others!) ā so here we are. This is a Burn in my book. Now I am not gonna make a process post for every single work that lights up and ends up in my bookmarks. This is just to show you how much it can actually take for me to make that decision for me between the initial find and the bookmark.
I also wonāt be analyzing anything else from this user. Iāve noted that I make no conclusion on anything else. Even if they have other works that have not been run through by AI or publish some in the future, I donāt want to read someone who does this when theyāve been given several fair shots to say they used AI, which I think some might even understand in the context of not being an English speaker. To not read is my choice, and itās an informed choice. Itās not discrimination. Yāall do what you want. If yāall donāt mind, then donāt mind. I pass no judgment on that, thatās your choice. But to me personallyā¦ for the love of God AI-authors, just own up to it. Who wants to be this? Dig themselves this deep? Why is it so difficult to say I used AI to make my text ābetterā? Itās allowed on AO3. Encouraged to be disclosed by AO3. If someoneās not admitting it itās because theyāre ashamed, because they also think they shouldnāt be using it, because they know a lot of people donāt like it because of scraping and then they might not get as many readers. But if they know all that and they still choose to use it anyway, they should at least have the guts to stand behind their own decisions and understand that hey, it might come out.
I seriously hope yāall have a better weekend. And just as a reminder: do not go yelling. Do not attack the author. Let a bookmark be enough. If you have to say something, choose your words with consideration. If youāre someone who knows them, talk to them and encourage them to publish their own stuff. And if they after this decide to own up and note/tag their stuff, then Iāll sure remove them from my AO3. Because thatās a lesson learned the hard way, but fairās fair.
Thanks for dropping in and Iām sorry you had to wait so long for a reply. For everyoneās information, Anon did not ignore instructions, this ask is at least two weeks old.
Okie dokie. Letās see here. This is me trying to be āeducationalā. I canāt guarantee success.
There were a lot of words here. 989,850 words to be exact, posted since 10/31/2024. This was the oldest date I could find while going through the chapter indexes. Theyāre a mess, why are peopleās indexes such a mess? When you go in and edit your chapter after publishing, it doesnāt change the date. The date has to be changed manually. Why do this? So annoying.
Digressing.
Is that word count completely nuts? Yeah. 89K-ish a month, 22K-ish a week, 3.2K a day. Is it extremely suspect? Yeah. Is it impossible? No. Is it something that makes me raise my eyebrows and go hmmm? Yes. This person is updating extremely quickly, sometimes more than one chapter a day. Is that highly āsusā in the age of AI? Yes.
But hereās the thing.
Remember how I said indicators need to be weighed and compared and markers need to be put into context? Iāve done that with randomized works, and I havenāt arrived at the same conclusion as the one I guess was behind your message to me, because while everything about that word count (with no mentions of where itās all coming from) is ringing all the bells of Notre Dame, I canāt make a call on one factor alone. So what else?
You say the characters seem āflat and soullessā. Yeah, AI sucks at interiority. Itās become better, but before 5 its own produce was pretty crap. And Iāll agree for some of these works, yes, they could be more fleshed out, but then for example for the āflower-hatingā one, I think itās actually pretty good? And. When someone writes quickly, thereās always the chance they write quantity over quality, you know? There are also a lot of scenes in these fics that include things I know for a fact AI alone wouldnāt have generated just by being prompted.
Potential work-arounds?
Soā¦ Could it be that they fed their own first drafts into Chatty first and then posted the pimped up version on AO3, and thatās why thereās non-AI-generated-scenes in something thatās gone through AI? Possibly, that would explain it. Chatty can do that, easily.
But these stories areā¦ actually not that pimped up? Iām not seeing enough residue of that, not quick enough to make that conclusion. Or in more detail: Iām not seeing enough of the strict formatting AI tends to impose on the material even when the pre-written material is good and should actually just be posted as it is if people werenāt so obsessed withā¦ whatever it is that makes them turn to AI even though they write themselves. Iām also seeing a lot of non-AI-default diction (word choices), aka sentences where I know it would have gone for a particular word by default, but the wordās not there. This I see a fair amount of, places where Iād expect A, but what Iāve got in front of me is not even B or C but R.
So did I see anything at all that might suggest AI use, beyond the suspect word count? Yes, here and there. Even in the hating flowers one, I wrote down four notes. Some things stood out. But some LLM overlap is to be expected in large bodies of text because LLMs were trained on pre-existing material. Generally findings need to be proportionate to the work. Here Iāll just hammer in that thereās still a huge difference between raw AI produce and how a human being writes (remember my M&Mās metaphor). Likewise seeing large LLM overlap in shorter bodies of text is nearly always a definite marker (unless its presence can be explained by other contextual factors, but rare rare rare). Not every AI user mass-posts 50K a week. Not every mass-poster is an AI user. Some people who use AI do One Shots. Most people who do One Shots wouldnāt touch AI with a ten-foot-pole. Case by case we go.
What else?
Weāve talked before about how far or not far someone will go to cover their tracks. Could this person have gone in and messed with their stories enough to hide the trail? Possibly. If I reeeeeally squint and imagine substituting some of the punctuation, for example, I guess I could try to engineer it in the other direction.
But Iām not gonna. And I canāt make a definite conclusion based on what might have happened or what would something look like if I did X or Y. I can only look at whatās actually there, the same way Iāve shown the followers of this blog whatās actually there in the materials Iāve openly analyzed and how that constitutes AI. And when I bookmark a work, I need to feel it in my gut. I need to be able to point to several different factors and say āhere, you see? Right here. Put these together.ā A text is a sum of its parts. Specific factors isolated mean little. Specific factors **together** are the result of AI. M&Mās. So when I open the text, it needs to be nearly instant recognition for me to publicly tell the āauthorā āI know you used AI and I know youāre lying about it so please tag your work and stop fucking with your readers, or else youāre pond scumā.
And the above didnāt happen for me here. Do I have an instinctive hunch? Hmmm, yeah. Iāll say that. Itās suspicious. But I need more than a hunch. So I wonāt be bookmarking this person. Because if my friends asked āwhatās up with that oneā all Iād have is āa very āsusā word count and slightly messy writing with a few red lights here and there and oh I have a hunchā. Itās not enough. Iāve told you guys: if Iām not sure, it aināt happening. And here, I canāt in good conscience say Iām sure. No bookmark, carry on.
If thatās disappointing, Anon, look at it this way: worst case, they get away with it, but someone else will probably think it shallow too and just not worth their time. Some people will get away with this stuff, and thatās something we gotta accept. I canāt be everywhere either, Iām just in a small fraction of my own favorite fandoms.
And best case, theyāre really just someone with a shitload of time on their hands.
So, did they use AI? Possibly. Would I go as far as saying probably? Hmm. If they did theyāve been extremely smart and patient about it and the time they must have invested into directing it over and over makes the hairs on my arms stand on end because what a waste. Would I say āyes no questionā? No. Canāt do that based on whatās in front of me. But try to see that as a good thing, Anon. Okay? Just mute them if you want. And if youāre really annoyed by this, then have a conversation with them yourself. Carefully. I wonāt, my time is limited, and Iām not gonna spend it arguing with someone when my own opinion rests on just possibly.
Hope you understand, Anon. Thanks for your ask and again, sorry for the long wait.
Please note that Anon Case Asks are temporarily closed. Keep sending your AI fanfic opinions though. Wishing everyone a nice weekend with great fics,
Messing with my queue a little because a lotta people have questions and opinions on the rightness/wrongness of Bex / bookmarkburn, so I thought Iād share something that ties into an Ask I already answered, where the Anon was wondering if I just bookmark with a bang or actually give people a chance to respond. Iāve already told you what I do, and that the comment is moderated/unanswered and Iām usually blocked. I think one work still has my slightly ironic initial comment but none of the cannonballs have been left up. So! Here you can follow an actual case with āBig Bad Bexā (thatās a joke, btw, in my own opinion Iām stern but still pretty fair in my comments) where the author came clean and tagged their work. This is great. We can dislike AI, but we do NOT leave shitty comments on tagged works. AI is allowed on AO3. Tagged is how it should be, itās what AO3 encourages.
Iāve wiped out everything thatās no one elseās business. Iāll only say this was a contact message a few days ago through my DMs (saved) asking me to take a look (Iām fairly sure the sender had identified it themselves because they included a passage thatā¦ stood out), and that the ship was one of my own favorites in the Harry Potter fandom. To me this was a clear-cut case of AI having been used:
(Sorry about my own error, itās meant to say āextremely clearā)
As you can see I provide enough for someone to know that I know, but I do not say exactly what or how. āAI-generatedā is an umbrella term that can mean many many things (Iāll discuss this in another Ask later). Saying so gives someone a chance to explain how theyāve used it. As you see I also inform them shortly why the work needs to be marked as involving AI.
So you see this reply. Yup, figured. But at least they replied instead of just blocking. Now. Did I make the private bookmark public immediately after the response?
No, I did not. Why?
Thereās a story I really like, and it has a line along āX didnāt mean anything by it but the lie was instinctive.ā
Itās humanly instinctive to lie sometimes at first. Panic, oh shit, etc etc, also because someone who uses AI but is not familiar with its mechanics might still think well they havenāt actually got anything, they canāt actually know etc etc.
So now what?
I say people need to be given a chance to do the right thing. So instead of just putting it out there, I give them a little push. Make it clear whatās up, that Iām not just trolling, that I have actually got something. Which I did. And voila:
Thatās what we call a 180. Are you confused? Yeah. I know itās kinda strange to go from āI donāt use AIā to āI can tag itā, I know, BUT hold your horses. In the next image they actually explain why. (my own reply has been glued together to make it one image, where it says āreasonsā) :
They blanked. This is why people need to be given a little push to do the right thing. The initial lie can be instinctive. Continuing to lie is a choice.
What did this person do?
The right thing.
They tagged their work with AI as beta = this informs people theyāre gonna encounter AI produce, and then itās their choice whether to read. (Thereās a fic in another one of my favorite ships thatās done it right. Guess the kudos count?
+700.)
So today is a good day.
Now you might not like this, you might think Iām scary and a total bitch sticking my nose around, but you canāt say Iām not giving people a chance here. I do not comment on works unless Iām sure. If you take issue, as I know some of my Anons do, then I really canāt help you. Iāve said it many many times over, I donāt care if youāve used AI as long as youāre being real about it. My interest is with those users who maliciously, and with pre-meditation, lie and keep lying. If you donāt like me, guess what? Block buttons exist.
Now you might think āWell Bex you can just block too instead of this shitā I could. But people masquerading AI as their own writing is something I personally have a huge issue with, itās right below plagiarism for me, and Iām not the only one whoās got beef with this, as some of this upcoming Tuesdayās Anon submissions show (btw Iāve received all kinds of opinions, also opinions that clash with mine, and I say: KEEP THEM COMING!) Likewise instead of blocking me, if you wanna keep sending me Asks about why we should burn Bex instead of AI liars? Well have at it.
Again. Not telling AI users who keep lying āhey, I know what youāre doing and I find it despicableā lets them continue to infiltrate spaces where they are not welcome. āDonāt like donāt readā well how are people supposed to be able to make that choice when what theyāre reading is being intentionally hidden from them?
These āpeople supposed toā used to be only my friend circle, I never thought one personās bookmarks would lead to anything, but then (based on Anons still coming in with unfortunately too many identifying details I canāt publish, sorry guys, I appreciate your anger but Iāve been pretty clear about that) someone apparently decided to throw a liar liar pants on fire carnival, and here we are. Now youāve heard of me. What I do is still primarily for my friends and my own readers, theyāre the ones I talk to. But if I can coincidentally save someone else from falling for this slop, or I can save stressed-out moderators from having to deal with it themselves, that is a win to me. But whether that happens is totally up to whether someone believes me, and I canāt affect that, and Iām not interested in making someone believe me. I just think someone needs to say something. If thatās not you, then donāt say anything. Scroll past, mute, whatever. Thatās your choice. But Iām not that person. If ALL I wanna do ā not harrass anyone, not lead campaigns against anyone, not encourage other people to attack anyone, in fact, Iāve explicitly encouraged forgiveness and support if they apologize ā is MAKE A BOOKMARK that says āin my opinion this is AIā and Iām qualified enough to have an expert opinion, then I will damn well do just that.
Obviously this case has not been bookmarked. The fewer bookmarks, the better, and I wish this person all the best.
Iāve so far received two Asks about hopes that Iād do more/be more educational (one published, one not) and Iāve said Iām no teacher. But, all right, I guess sharing some stuff canāt hurt. So I will soon be publishing an example of what AI does when used like it was here in this case, Iāve mentioned it before, Iām just waiting on the GPT-version. I received an ask yesterday that inquired about that particular case actually, and to that Anon I say now: Iāve seen it. Itās great that you wrote me if itās been, as you say, bothering you. I get why itās confusing. Iām going to present the case once I get parts of the GPT-version, and then after Iāll answer your ask and we can discuss it better because at that point youāll hopefully have seen what it was about and how using ChatGPT as beta can change a text so much that it lights up as AI. Donāt stress, I gotchu. Just gotta wait for the text so that I can do a side-by-side. Thanks for your patience, and thanks for your Ask too.
Thank you for all the time you invested into the analysis you recently posted. I may have gone about the methodology slightly differently myself, but thatās me, and it was certainly a very fascinating read.
Iād like to talk about another matter, and I sincerely hope youāll let me do so through your page. Thereās no need to comment or respond, Iād appreciate it if you could just post it as it is for the purpose of thought exchange. But of course if you do wish to say something, please do.
-
In the past weeks itās become apparent that these are conversations needed to be held, yet we seem to lack the appropriate space for it. Iām not saying this one blog is necessarily that spaceāin fact, I suspect itās fairly inflamed (no harm intended) as of this momentābut for now it must do. Iām sure a few people might even recognise me, but quite frankly, I donāt believe Iām saying anything that others arenāt already thinking.
What I found missing in the postāand this isnāt criticism, Iām aware space is limitedāwas the underscorement of the perspective of the giftee reader.
Fandom fests are fantastic; Iām someone who loves submitting prompts, and the excitement of seeing whether someone will go for my idea is truly its own kind of nerve-wracking in the loveliest of ways. I also write myself, have been for about 10 years (rip ff.net), but I didnāt get into these larger fandom fests until this year when I finally joined Discord. Itās been wonderfully inspiring.
So, in a hypothetical scenario, I see my prompts have been claimed. Absolutely stoked, canāt wait. And then, posting starts. And I wake up one morning and see an email from AO3 saying āa gift work for youā. To hell with breakfast, Iām diving into this right now. I click on the storyāonly to find my eyes widening at the checklist sensory coverage, stock similes, boilerplate phrasings, and rigid geometries that I myself recognise from texts known to be AI generated. The more I read, the more I see.
And I am absolutely livid.
Because what someoneās done here isnāt just āgiftā me something they themselves did not write (as well as something I do not wish to read). Theyāve also gone and claimed my prompt, making it unavailable to someone who would not have used AI in the first place. Someone whose work wouldāve had me absolutely ecstatic. I swear to god, I see thisāand I see red.
I come from a literary background, and while my writingās been heavily influenced by the authors Iāve conducted my research on and the fanfiction writers Iāve read since adolescence, Iām far from stellar. Is my own work visually the absolute starkest contrast of AI generated text? No. Iām certain that bookmarkburn would be able to find random markers because I do so love using some of the constructions that are slowly becoming referred to as āGPTismsā online. Am I frightened Iāll end up accused of AI? No. Because random markers isnāt the same as inherent, systemic formation, and also, I must have faith that at least someone with a semblance of fully-developed grey matter is still able to differentiate between human emotion and AI-generated. I must, or I simply see no point in writing anymore.
Iāve always maintained that, bot-messages and trolly twats aside (whom I myself refer to as the ām-dash policeā), no one who writes their stories themselves need worry about being seriously accused of using AI. I hear some non-AI writers do worry, but I wish to say: please donāt. Genuinely. It might feel frustrating if you donāt know whatās what or how AI works, but trust me when I say, this conversation isnāt about you. So, why go to the ends of the earth trying to make it about you? It isnāt. Just breathe deeply, accept that, and youāre alright. Write your own mind, donāt let AI touch your work, and youāre alright.
A few nights ago I had a grand conversation with someone familiar with the technical side of AI. We discussed why spaces have rules against it in place, and amongst many topics, we touched upon accessibility. Fandom should be accessible to all; it should be a place where youāre allowed and encouraged to showcase writing that corresponds to your own skill level. Should you wish to learn more and develop your own abilities, weāve got beta channels on nearly every server, with lots of people ready to step in and help you become a better writer.
Bringing AI-generated stories into such a space and presenting them as your skill level upsets this balance fundamentally. It is cheating, in something thatās never even been a competition. Fandom isnāt about that. Itās about bringing each other joy, forming strong friendships, screaming over the hotness of this and this character, writing precisely the kind of filthy debauchery you want to write, and giving and taking in equal amounts. So, when someone enters this space and attempts to participate through deceit (to use bookmarkburnās word, because no matter the reason, undisclosed use is deceit and I wonāt be convinced otherwise unless someone brings it up themselves), the connections they make are already rotting at the root. And more than one person suffers the consequences, because the realisation that someoneās lied to you the whole time affects a minimum of two people, and lies without accountability and genuine apology are capable of effectively destroying relationships beyond repair.
This is why, in my opinion and that of many of my friends, AI has no place in fandom community, and especially not in fandom fests. Iāve got no trouble raising a bit of hell should I see someoneās had the sheer and utter gall to āgiftā someone a work thatās so obviously AI-generated itās insulting. We do not spend hours and hours and hours on half a page for someone to just type out an idea, push a key, and say āOh this? Why, of course I wrote thisā.
If someone who reads this finds themselves disagreeing, Iād like to hear why. This is not an invitation to a debate but to a conversation that ought to have been held some time ago.
Best wishes,
āEliot
Thank you in advance, bookmarkburn, for allowing me to throw a very maddened but hopefully coherent penny into the discourse.
(Queued)
Iād like to hear what you would have done differently methodology-wise, Eliot, so please drop me another ask or a DM. Nothing else to add except thank you for your thoughts. If you wanna āexchange thoughtsā with Eliot, please address your ask to them, not to Bex / bookmarkburn, and Iāll mediate openly on here. Thanks.
A few of us would like to say something. Weāve included no sensitive details, and weād like for you to post this please. If you donāt want to just delete, no worries. But this is important, and we know people are reading you atm. So thank you from us if you post.
In the spring, someone joined our online space and began posting their own stories in fic-recs and self-recs. It is why these exist, we want stories. But our space also has a no AI content rule that everyone must read and agree to, to gain access. Then several of our members noticed these fics, not just one. So we eventually had a conversation, not with blame but just questions, with the person, and it was pretty clear that they werenāt actually the person writing these works, that theyād had a lot of help (they denied this). We obviously donāt discriminate based on language, everyone is welcome. Whether youāre a starting writer or advanced, you are welcome. Share you work, we want you here, the more the better. But you have to create it yourself (or with a beta) and not steal from whatās already out there written by us/others.
They left and we let it be, but we did tell some mod friends. Then later in the summer we heard the same thing was happening in another place, same person.
Now you might roll your eyes and this might sound like a toddler telephone game but itās not. Itās just that, by sharing this, we want to show that for those who try to play us and cause trouble, moderators talk. Weāre meant to keep everything nice and safe for everyone, so we speak to each other. Thatās the thing, we value our spaces. So you can maybe get away with breaking the rules in one place, but someone will somewhere catch on. If you want to post AI onto ao3 then no oneās stopping you. (Even bookmarkburn isnāt stopping you, just asking for honesty, if weāve understood correct.)
You just canāt do AI as a part of our events (even when theyāre on ao3) or in spaces that have rules against it.
Fandom can seem infinite, but it's not. Some of us have been here for years, we know each other, we created these spaces. That doesnāt mean we donāt welcome new people, we do of course, thatās not the point. The point is please if you read this and you are someone whoās using/promoting AI where youāre not allowed to do it, remember that even though we havenāt written you, we might already know. So please think long and hard whether itās worth it.
We all offer beta help. Thereās no reason to use AI, and even less reason to try to lie to us. Weāre here to enjoy fandom and each other. Someone doing this makes that very hard and causes more stress than anything else. Itās really distressing to have to have these conversations, itās not nice to have to confront someone, but thatās something weāve had to do. And we really wish we donāt have to do it again.
Maybe itās silly to try to reason with someone āsmugglingā because conscious rule-breaking already shows huge disregard for other peopleās feelings, but saying this is still better than saying nothing. At least no one can say they didnāt know. If someone wants to be part of something, please they must respect other creators enough to follow a simple rulebook.
Thank you for reading.
(Queued)
I agree this is important so Iām happy to post it here. No additions from me. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. (And you have understood correctly. Post away onto ao3. Just tag or note it and be honest.)
Today I received an Anon ask that made me reflect on many things. One is that apparently there are conversations being had about me in places where Iām not. Thatās okay, thatās the internet. I have my own hangouts. But this ask did make me wonder (not just, Anon, donāt worry) whatās being said about AI fanfic in places where other fanfic writers than my own trusted bunch come together.
Obviously I know what the general opinion is, but Iād be interested to hear from you who follow/visit this blog specifically, now that this blog has (apparently) become a topic of discussion. So letās try to do something thatās not just āBex catching crooksā for a change.
Tell me:
What are your reasons for not wanting to read AI fanfic? Why do you dislike it? What pisses you off? Are you a reader/writer or both?
Or (yeah, if this is how you feel then I do wanna hear this):
What are your reasons for being fine with AI fanfic? If you donāt mind it being generated, tell me why? Do you think fandom should welcome AI use? Are you a reader/writer or both?
Any length. Any opinion will be treated respectfully. Weāre aiming for conversation here, folks. Not bashing. So drop me an (Anon) ask starting with āAI fanficā or send me a DM starting with the same line, and say as much or as little as you want. Iāll make a long post with the answers on Tuesday 10/7/2025. DMs sent will never have usernames revealed.
Remember asks and DMs are open for general thoughts or rants or opinions or whatever. Some people have already sent some that require no input from me. Iāve got two queued. I donāt know if inviting conversation is the kind of āchangeā my todayās polite and thoughtful Anon had in mind (and Iām not done thinking about your ask), but Iāll start here and weāll see how it goes.
Have a good evening everyone, remember to hug your pets.
I was absolutely blown away by the amount of work and effort you put into your recent post. I really admire that you're not just standing up and saying something about AI usage, but you're showing the receipts too.
I personally find it hard to believe that so many people read these works and don't realize they're AI - it's pretty fucking obvious - so hopefully what you're doing will show people that they can't get away with being sneaky about it.
Again, kudos and thanks from the community who writes every šš¼ single šš¼ painful šš¼ fucking word.
(Queued)
This was nice to hear, thank you Anon for dropping in.Ā
I like the word receipts. I donāt know if I would necessarily use it for the analysis itself. Iām just showing you what I see. I think people telling on themselves are actually the real receipts, Iāve just pre-emptively kept an eye on the paper trail because people nearly always do exactly what youād expect them to do once they realize theyāve been found out.Ā
I personally find it hard to believe that so many people read these works and don't realize they're AI - it's pretty fucking obviousĀ
I think itās obvious if you know what to look for. Sometimes ignorance is bliss and ignorance rarely has any intent except for existence. Many readers arenāt native speakers, and that makes it even harder.Ā
And of course, not all AI works will be bad storywise. People can get pulled in, and when youāre immersed, you donāt necessarily pay too much attention toĀ howĀ something is presented, only toĀ whatĀ is presented.Ā
Iām currently sitting on a story thatās been very popular and received a huge amount of praising comments. No one seems to be questioning the ridiculously quick updates, the repetitive sentence structures appearing in nearly the exact same place in each chapter etc etc. And I canāt blame them. But it alsoĀ doesnātĀ feel good to expose, so Iām gonna sit on it a little longer before contacting the author. It would just be so much easier if people were honest.
My best wishes to you and our community, Anon.Ā Keep writing every single painful fucking word.
Hi! So, I think if you're going to make such bold accusations that could ruin a person's reputation, you should at least provide examples, evidence, an analysis maybe?
Because I'll be honest with you, I see what you're talking about on a few of the works you've bookmarked. It's the excessive use of adverbs and adjectives, the metaphors that don't mean anything, the repeated sentence structures, blah blah blah, I do see it. Would I call it out? No. Because of two things: 1 when it's that obvious, I think the trash will take itself out. No one can bear to read that kind of prose for long, it's shit, and none of those fics will do well and earn much attention because it's so obviously not human it's uncomfortable to read and readers are not stupid, they catch on to that. And 2 I think calling people out publically gives yet another opportunity for AI to ruin fandom spaces. It's already harmful, but I think responding to it that way makes it even MORE harmful because it creates an unstable and unsafe environment where people are afraid of sharing their writing because they think they're going to get called out, even if they didn't do anything. I see authors afraid of this everytime this gets brought up on reddit and discord, and even AO3 seems to agree with this, as this is one of the reasons why they decided not to ban AI on the website.
But fine, if you want to call people out, I'm not going to tell you what to do. Honestly, AI is a new thing and we do not yet know how to deal with it and I can accept the possibility that I'm wrong and that we should be calling people out, maybe.
My problem with the way you're doing it still stands because you do nothing but point to a work and say: "Hey look! This is AI!" And not all of your pointed fingers are to obvious AI slop. I read all of the works you bookmarked, and while I agree with your judgement on some of those, there are one or two there that I don't think are AI. I think there's very obvious evidence of human writing there.
Now, could I be wrong? Absolutely! I do have daily contact with AI (work in advertising, you know how corporate is nowadays, AI use is required to boost your productivity and I can't afford to argue on principle, I've got kids to feed) and I'm pretty confident I'm able to catch on the clues, most of the time. But I still could be wrong, because I am human, and I am fallible.
So are you, though. And I get that you are confident enough on your skills (I don't, really. I could never, I'm always hyper aware of my shortcomings) but I think as a community, we're going to need more than that.
I believe that you are a well intentioned person who really cares about creating a safe fandom space, and I want to say that so am I. I'm questioning these things because I care about fandom and I don't want this to turn into a witch hunt with people being accused without basis because of one single person's opinion about their writing. I believe this is harmful and it scares me and I think we need to do better than that.
So please, if you could clarify for us: what are your methods? What do you see in each of those works that make you believe so surely they were created by AI? If you could provide examples taken out of each one, that would be great.
Also, when you call those authors out, do you give them the chance or trying to counter your argument or defend their process? If an author were to provide evidence that their work wasn't generated on AI (say for example the saved history and alterations made on the document they worked on) would that be enough for you to consider you might be wrong on your judgement? If not, what would be sufficient?
Also, please, just a suggestion: consider having more people look over those works and give their unbiased opinion on whether they think it's AI or not? I believe that you don't mean harm, but basing serious accusations on one single person's analysis is not the way to go, I think.
I really hope you'll answer this and not just delete my question, and I hope we can have a productive conversation about this because really I think these talks need to happen if we want to keep fandom safe for everyone. Thank you.
All right, itās Sunday, letās tackle this one now. For everyoneās information, this ask arrived just before this and this, and seeing as these two made it sound like there was a real-time situation causing all sorts of drama somewhere on the web, I decided to prioritize. Apologies, Anon, that you had to wait, but I wanted to give this the same kind of time you seem to have invested in your ask. So letās work through this one piece by piece.Ā Anon in blue, myself in white.
So, I think if you're going to make such bold accusations that could ruin a person's reputation, you should at least provide examples, evidence, an analysis maybe?
Are they? Bold accusations that ruin a personās reputation? Letās get one thing straight. People who choose to use generative AI to produce fanfiction and post it online as their own writing ruin their own reputations because they think they can outsmart everyone else. As for examples, evidence, analysis: condensed examples of findings have been added, as requested, here. See partial analysis of one bookmarked user here. This analysis includes enough of what I personally consider evidence (there were mountains more) because Iāve said this at least twice now: there are no AI detectorās in our Lordās year of 2025 that will give a definite result and I donāt like those anyway. I do manual analysis, for which Iāve been trained. Itās your own choice whether you believe me or not, I donāt bookmark anyone unless Iām sure and would stand up in a hypothetical court of law and declare āyour honor, itās my professional opinion that this text has been AI-generated/AI-processed, because of these and theseā¦ā (I donāt see this happening. Plagiarism is a thing though.)
Because I'll be honest with you, I see what you're talking about on a few of the works you've bookmarked. It's the excessive use of adverbs and adjectives, the metaphors that don't mean anything, the repeated sentence structures, blah blah blah, I do see it.Ā
Thatās really great. Just remember that each and every one of these isolated doesnāt automatically mean a text is AI. Each text is a sum of its parts. Letās not everybody lose our shit because someone likes modifiers ! Findings need to be put into context and compared as a whole to known AI produce.Ā Permission to utilize common sense is still in effect.
Would I call it out? No. Because of two things: 1 when it's that obvious, I think the trash will take itself out. No one can bear to read that kind of prose for long, it's shit, and none of those fics will do well and earn much attention because it's so obviously not human it's uncomfortable to read and readers are not stupid, they catch on to that.Ā
Yeah. Youād think, wouldnāt you. You know what I think? I think we can conclude by now that the ātrashā (to use your word) does in fact not take itself out. Not even when itās shown where the door is. As for prose being shit, letās just pause for a second here.
Not everything that AI generates is seemingly trash, especially not when itās got a smart human directing it. There is currently a multi-chapter fic in my private bookmarks thatās been extremely popular. The comments are raving about the prose etc etc etc. Nothing in these comments suggests that someoneās realized what it is (although the user might have deleted the comments). And believe it or not, it actually sucks to have to have that conversation, but Iām gonna. Contrary to what you might think, Anon, my thoughts when I trip on an AI-generated fic arenāt āI got you now, motherfuckerā. Theyāre āwhy, why, why, why the hell did you have to do this? Why couldnāt you just write yourself?āĀ
And 2 I think calling people out publicly gives yet another opportunity for AI to ruin fandom spaces. It's already harmful, but I think responding to it that way makes it even MORE harmful because it creates an unstable and unsafe environment where people are afraid of sharing their writing because they think they're going to get called out, even if they didn't do anything. I see authors afraid of this everytime this gets brought up on reddit and discord, and even AO3 seems to agree with this, as this is one of the reasons why they decided not to ban AI on the website.
(Among other reasons AO3 hasnāt banned AI, because they donāt have the resources for all the fics that would get reported and because again no detection softwareās 100%)
I disagree on the first half of this. Thereās actually an āopinionā ask in my inbox that addresses this and Iāve queued it because itās about a lof of the same stuff Iām telling you here. As for these authors you say are afraid: What exactly are they afraid of? That someone is gonna commentĀ āthis is AIā because they write well? And when asked why they think that, this someoneās gonna reply āwell you always use the m-dashā and the authorās whole world justā¦ crumbles over āāā ? Somebody call the cops, we need to charge Emily Dickinson for using AI!
Iām sorry. I donāt mean to be condescending. Being scared is no fun. Butā¦ my dear brother or sister or however-you-identify in Christ: Writing well and writing like an LLM are two different things. People who donāt use AI to write got nothing to flip out about. If theyāre flipping out every two seconds, you should ask them why. āIām scared bookmarkburnās gonna get meā well, I think we can all agree that bookmarkburn doesnāt come for you unless youāre using AI. Bookmarkburn might actually leave your non-AI work a really nice comment, sheās known to do that too. So chill out, please.Ā
But fine, if you want to call people out, I'm not going to tell you what to do. Honestly, AI is a new thing and we do not yet know how to deal with it and I can accept the possibility that I'm wrong and that we should be calling people out, maybe.
Mm-hm.
My problem with the way you're doing it still stands because you do nothing but point to a work and say: "Hey look! This is AI!" And not all of your pointed fingers are to obvious AI slop. I read all of the works you bookmarked, and while I agree with your judgment on some of those, there are one or two there that I don't think are AI. I think there's very obvious evidence of human writing there.
Iām gonna disregard this first part because Iām the one who hasnāt had time to answer your ask previously, and Iām not gonna chew you out for commenting on stuff thatās already been fixed when it wasnāt fixed at the time you submitted this.
Iāve already said that Iām fully aware of the issues with the initial bookmarks. I apologize for not immediately adding details, I seriously didnāt think a single personās bookmarks would lead to me having to create an actual blog. But I will not apologize for how angry I sound. I am angry. You should be too.Ā Actually, why arenāt you?
As for the second part: Iām gonna take a deep breath here.
All right.
People who use AI to create fanfic are not all some pimply-faced teenagers sitting in their momās basement with one hand down their pants and an IQ of 65. Theyāre everything from college students to housewives to bored mansion-owners in Boca. A fanfic being AI does not mean a human being hasnāt touched anything about that fic. In fact, itās extremely rare to see unedited ChatGPT output the way we saw here.
AI users are not all idiots. Thinking no one will catch on and that theyāre outsmarting everyone else might make them seem like an idiot in hindsight, but many, many of these people are clever. Theyāre just also lazy and horny for kudos, but having a story in your head and feeling like youāre gonna explode if you donāt get it out is NOT an excuse to present it as your own work to your audience. And when comments are allowed and a user gaslights readers in the comments and advertises when the next chapter will be up, THAT is someone looking for an audience for their slop.
Where their cleverness falls short (for some, unfortunately not for all all) is surface level edits that do trick the immersed trusting reader. What most of these āauthorsā donāt understand is that thereās an underlying system and tweaking a word or two, or even having a beta reader change a little something, doesnāt actually remove the building-blocks of the text. Thereās an ask in my inbox wondering what I mean when I say prompted/generated etc etc, aka different types of AI texts, so Iāll address that when Iāve got time.Ā Thereās also an ask about a user whoās been smart enough to foresee this and guess what? I wonāt be able to burn them. Iām not totally done analyzing yet, but right now it looks like theyāll be getting away with it.
Now, could I be wrong? Absolutely! I do have daily contact with AI (work in advertising, you know how corporate is nowadays, AI use is required to boost your productivity and I can't afford to argue on principle, I've got kids to feed) and I'm pretty confident I'm able to catch on the clues, most of the time. But I still could be wrong, because I am human, and I am fallible.
Yes, I do know. You gotta do what you gotta do. Not gonna comment on your personal life beyond that.Ā
So are you, though. And I get that you are confident enough on your skills (I don't, really. I could never, I'm always hyper aware of my shortcomings) but I think as a community, we're going to need more than that.
Iām fallible in many ways, Iām sure. This generally isnāt one of them though. I get why you would think that. But do you also tell the pilot when you board a plane āwhat if todayās the day the autopilot goes up in flames and then you lose control of the stick? Youāre just human after allā? (No need to answer. I know the answer is ānoā, and you know why I asked.)
It also appears as though you at the same time think I expect people to automatically take my word as some kind of gospel. If that were the case then all this would look a whole lot different. Do you see any slandering campaigns? Am I loading up my RAM and going to war? Have I gone after the readers leaving love on these AI fics?
No.
You are free to keep reading bookmarked users. Theyāre free to keep using AI. The only difference is now they know theyāve been found out. I hope this will encourage them to either stop using AI or to tag their work as they should have from the very start. There are hundreds of AI-tags to choose from depending on the extent of the use. Thereās no excuse here to leave it out, except masquerading as skill. But I suspect they wonāt because that would mean having to tell their friends and readers āokay, so, I lied to you. I did use it. Sorry, I shouldnāt have, I just didnāt think anyone would knowā. So they get to chill in my bookmarks, and the only reason theyāre there is themselves. If they want me to remove them, they know where I am.
I believe that you are a well intentioned person who really cares about creating a safe fandom space, and I want to say that so am I. I'm questioning these things because I care about fandom and I don't want this to turn into a witch hunt with people being accused without basis because of one single person's opinion about their writing. I believe this is harmful and it scares me and I think we need to do better than that.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that this is all just one single pissed-off person whoās just prowling the feeds of AO3 looking for her next victim. That might be my fault. But Iām not. I didnāt create a separate account called bookmarkburn with the intention of doing this. The account was actually called gr33nlights, and I created it for me and my partner this winter to share fics weāre reading. There are comments upon positive comments across AO3 from both of us. My partnerās not American, so you can actually tell if itās me or them commenting. The username became bookmarkburn this summer when I got fucking tired of not being able to scroll my ships without seeing untagged slop left and right when I already have to deal with that crap at work and in my free time I wanna be with my partner and my friends and take care of our animals and write and read some goddamn fanfic. Not AI-fic.
Iāve also been in fandom for many, many years. Iāve published +200K. This means I have friends, loyal readers etc. Many of these know what I do. Many of these are smart. Many of these know they can text me and say āhey, would you and [partnerās name] check this outā. I will not be disclosing my partner's name or username and this is not up for discussion.Ā
So: without basis because of one single personās opinion is really not it.Ā
So please, if you could clarify for us: what are your methods? What do you see in each of those works that make you believe so surely they were created by AI? If you could provide examples taken out of each one, that would be great.
Already done. Yāall are welcome to ask for more, which I will then address as a public post. I promise to be just as thorough as I was here, but remember this takes time. I know, Anon, that youāre not in my head where itās all clear and thatās not your fault, so Iām gonna try something here. And this is extremely simplified, okay? Iām sure Open AI would electric-chair me on the spot, but Iām just trying to do an easy digestible example for you.Ā
Do you like M&Mās? I love āem. Human prose is like M&Mās with a zillion different colors. Authors share some M&Mās with each other. What an LLM has is like its own bag of ābest M&Māsā that itās put together from millions and millions and millions of texts. Millions and millions and millions of M&Mās. Itās been trained āthese M&Mās (specific syntactic structures, diction, narrative arcs, styles, etc etc etc, long-ass list, including shit it consistently fucks up) are the best ones to use, but because it canāt (yet) understand when it goes overboard, it compulsively just barfs these same M&Mās out. Different colors in abundance depending on what kind of text itās meant to create (advertising? journal article? cv? essay?). So in the same kinds of texts, youāll find these same-colored M&Mās consistently throughout AI-generated slop.Ā
Now picture this: if human prose is made up of a zillion different colored M&Mās, how are the exact same M&Mās suddenly appearing across a multitude of authorsāĀ works in our year of 2025?Ā In exactly the same way within style-sets?
Sure, there are trends. But just think about it.Ā Again, way simplified. But think about it.
Also, when you call those authors out, do you give them the chance of trying to counter your argument or defend their process?Ā
Yāall have the choice to respond. Block appears to be the popular choice no later than after my second contact, usually after the first.
If an author were to provide evidence that their work wasn't generated on AI (say for example the saved history and alterations made on the document they worked on) would that be enough for you to consider you might be wrong on your judgment?Ā
Again, I consider this void because this is seriously justā¦ not a problem? Using AI doesnāt mean thereās no document, it can be filled section-by-section through copypaste. Using AI doesnāt mean the work hasnāt had a proofreader, it just means the proofreader wasnāt able to see what they were actually looking at.Ā Not their fault either, we wanna trust people. Take this:
Iāve just spent half the week on an older case where it was made clear that the story had been drafted part-for-part. Like any human author. Guess what? The AO3 version was ChatGPT-processed! Not just my assessment. The authorās admission. Iād commented a while ago, and they came to me themselves via DM and apologized before Iād had time and energy to put it all together and bookmark them. Case closed. I have this in my DMs, but unless they do it again I wonāt be sharing their username. Fairās fair.
If not, what would be sufficient?
Again. This isā¦ just not really a question of interpretation. Ever seen Gone Girl? Itās like blood splatter. Itās either all over the floor or it isnāt, and while you can try to scrub it off, unless you know which chemicals to use, itāll still stick and light up like a bitch. And thereās gotta be a goddamn lot of it for me to make a public bookmark.
Also, please, just a suggestion: consider having more people look over those works and give their unbiased opinion on whether they think it's AI or not? I believe that you don't mean harm, but basing serious accusations on one single person's analysis is not the way to go, I think.
See above, please. In some cases though, one educated personās analysis is actually enough.
I really hope you'll answer this and not just delete my question, and I hope we can have a productive conversation about this because really I think these talks need to happen if we want to keep fandom safe for everyone. Thank you.
Thank you too, Anon, for this ask. I hope youāve now had your questions answered and I wish you a good Sunday.Ā
For whoever sees this: I said I have an opinion ask in my inbox that doesnāt require me to reply. Thatās cool, takes no time, into the queue. If thereās something you wanna say about this topic, youāre welcome to. Just mark it as opinion at the beginning of the ask please and Iāll post (no usernames please, general details ok).
have you shared your ao3 bookmarks link? I wanted to check which fics have been outed as AI, but I didn't see your actual list or link anywhere. thanks!
Hello,
The link to my AO3 is here. Username bookmarkburn. Only 3 bookmarks are public. Majority bookmarks are private because weāre still in the waiting phase.
Edit: I only now noticed (13 minutes after replying) that youāve used the word āoutedā.
Yes, to me this is outing. But Iād still like to remind everyone that while I am sure and my notes include why I am sure, your call is at the end of the day your own. I donāt demand these works removed, I want them tagged/authorās noted.
just would like to say i largely appreciate you breaking through you analysis like you did on the last post, it was very informative and very interesting as well
you mentioned you're reluctant to share your thoughts because you think people who use AI to generate fanfic will use this information to mask themselves, bit i honestly think those people are too lazy to do that on that level. i mean, editing out a few em dashes, slipping in a few typos, sure, that's easy. but the second they have to start jumping through actual hoops or actually putting effort into their "work", it will stop being fun for them. if they have to go through every output from ChatGPT ridding it of every stupid metaphor and exaggerated adverb and they have to start noticing how many times the word "deliberate" was used and whatnot, they'll simply not do it anymore, i think. it reaches a point where simply writing it yourself is easier, if you have to do that much editing. so actually the more clues you give them, the harder you're making it for them.
all of that with the added bonus of educating the community and giving us the weapons we need to stay away from this kind of writing and curate our fandom experiences better. it is invaluable, so thank you.
(Queued) Hello Anon,
Thank you for this ask. Iām glad you found it informative and interesting even though I was unable to fit even half of what Iād found.
How I wish you were right that the second AI-users need to start jumping through actual hoops theyāll give up. But guess what Iāve been observing these past few days?Ā
For one reason or another, some users Iāve contacted but not yet bookmarked for strong indicators of AI involvement haveā¦ seemingly mass-hidden some of their works into private ārewriteā collections. Not just one, but several. Is that an indication of guilt? No, not necessarily. People are allowed to edit their own works, I know authors who do it all the time. But it will be interesting to compare versions, if these works ever appear again, to see if the edited parts happen to correspond to the same things that rang my bells. Weāll see. I canāt bring myself to care too much here either. The works are hidden, so no one can stumble upon them and be misled.Ā
Iām sorry if this is disappointing, but I wonāt be making any āLOOK FOR THESE SIGNS TO SPOT AIā posts because:
1: Iām not out to start some kind of mass movement. Fandom doesnāt need that. My bookmarks are at the end of the day for myself and my friends, and for cheaters to know that we see them. People are free to label me a quack, and not once have I stated anywhere that youĀ mustĀ believe me. If someone doesnāt agree with me, let them not agree. Let them keep reading. Thatās their choice.
2: Unfortunately Iāve seen too many āthis is aiā comments (from guests and registered users, sure, some can be bots, but still) on works that are so obviously human to me ! simply because the works were extremely well-written or included the long dash. No. Iād like to say āDonāt be an idiot, use common senseā. But common sense seems to be lacking these days, so I wonāt be, even accidentally, putting any kind of encouraging indicator lists into the hands of people who consistently show they canāt be trusted with them. Is that infantilizing? Maybe. But Iād rather infantilize than say āthis is a common sign of AIā and then see people start blindly attacking others because they lack the ability to put signs into context and weigh indicators against one another.Ā
This doesnāt mean though that things like the stuff I included in the past analysis wonāt be mentioned here anymore. Not at all. You use the words āeducating the communityā. I am no teacher, but I do have some things that I think readers could learn from. I recently contacted someone asking if I could use their work as a case study, and theyāve agreed. So I will in the future be making an āeducational postā about what AI may do to elevate a story and show what this looks like (this has already happened, I wonāt be generating anything myself). I hope you will find this informative and interesting too in due time.
noticed you deleted one bookmark. does that mean you were wrong about that author? (genuine question, no hate)
(Bumped to the top of the queue)Ā
Short answer: No, unfortunately it doesnāt look that way.Ā
Long answer: Thanks for your ask and the āno hateā, itās actually a real nice touch. No, my initial opinion and analysis are sadly still what they were, but Iāve received a broader reference frame. One that unfortunately only shows even a starker contrast between whatās being published now versus what was written before GPT became a frequent sight on AO3. More info here ā¤µļø
Someone dropped me a DM informing me that the user in question used to go by another username. Not another account, just a different username. This username led further back in time off AO3 and revealed more (very not GPT-style writing), which changes the quantity of the comparison data. And when that happens, I need to adjust what Iāve got. And during that adjustment period, I remove the bookmark and keep the details away, because if someone were to demand an analysis right this second, it wouldnāt be complete and as you perhaps saw from a previous case, it takes a lot of time to compile everything into a package that someone whoās not GPT-acquinted can easily follow in order to make their own decision.
Side-note: I donāt consider myself or my partner or my boss or anyone an all-knowing AI God. Obviously. And as Iāve said before, I donāt care if anyone believes me. If people choose ignorance is bliss, let them. If they think Iām a hag whoās pulling shit out her ass, let them. It doesnāt hurt my ācredibilityā to be wrong when at the end of the day the only people whose opinion I care about are the ones closest to me, who know me. That also means I have no trouble apologizing if evidence suggests thatās what I should do. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to refuse to apologize when the very thing Iām asking for is a) disclosure and 2) apology if they have bullshitted the readers right in the face in the comments for example.Ā
I also received this just a few hours ago:Ā
For anyone reading: remember we do not shit on spelling errors. These are often a sign that someone has bothered to learn more than one language, which is more than can be said for half the country. And yes DMāer, I do know. Iām well aware that sometime in the days following the making of that bookmark, the author stopped doing something they used to do a lot. Is that an admission of guilt? No, people are allowed to experiment and change how they write. Of course they are.Ā
But weāre talking about a prevalent syntactic construction thatās been present in every single work since they began āmass-postingā, and when people begin to change their styles, it rarely happens overnight. Theyāve been publishing a perfectly-written story per day. Could they have had backlog? Sure, especially for the event Iāve wiped over. But the change is visually overnight, since Iāve got the befores and afters saved and theyāre dated, and it correlates with my timing. And because Iāve got it all, itās easy to compare post-changes, so this oneās not really at the top of my list right now. So whether I crack down on this one tomorrow or a month from now doesnāt change whatās already been uploaded and subsequently downloaded.
Iāve promised people to throw more details onto AO3 and I also need to tweak my bio (because boy do I sound pissed off) and that takes priority after asks, so Iām just not gonna stress about this one. Perhaps the author even has a change of heart in the meantime and just owns up to it. Thatād really be the best outcome.Ā
Thanks for your nice message, Anon. A good afternoon to everyone.
PS. To the 785-word askās Anon from last week: I promise Iām not ignoring you. But you wrote me a really long message that I wanna reply to with the same amount of care since most of those +700 appear thoughtfully chosen. Iām letting some shorter asks through in the meantime.
I recently received a non-anon ask which also requested to keep the conversation private. No problem on my end. But unfortunately I can't reply to your asks without revealing your username on the blog, which I donāt wanna do, and Iām unable to send you a direct message. If you send me one, then I can help you with your ask. So if you recognize yourself from the message below that I've redacted as much as I could, please send me a private message, thank you. In your ask, you mentioned gmail, but it's easier for me to keep track of everything in the same place. DM usernames will never be revealed on this blog unless the sender explicitly requests that I publish their words under their own name.
" hello hello, not sure how this works (...) Iām not as up to date on AI stuff as I probably should be... "
As long as asks are open, you can always ask. Forgive me though for not answering your ask directly but taking this route instead. Iāll explain why.Ā
Obviously I canāt make a comment about the fic, but Iāll say that if it is one of these cases then Iām sorry youāve had the (exceedingly more common) misfortune of running into one. I was scrolling one of my favorite tags earlier on this account and found a couple of great stories to leave kudos and positive comments on. And then two cases I had to note for myself because too many bells went off like it was Christmas morning, except the gifts really sucked. Youāre not alone in it.Ā
The reason Iāve had to wipe out part of your ask is that youāve uncovered a clever way for AI users to cover their tracks. There are ways to check, but itās even more time-consuming so Iām just not gonna hand it out on a silver platter on this blog of all places. But I do wanna address the rest of your ask publicly.Ā
What would make a fanfiction veteran take that route?
Iāve had some time to wonder about this. The first thing we have to consider is that even if they are someone whoās been around for a long time and had their fics scraped, they might not care. I personally canāt imagine not caring. I canāt. But thatās me.Ā People are different.
What else could it be?Ā
AI both is and isnāt a new thing. When new stuff happens, especially stuff that comes to affect society on the whole, people wanna see what all the fuss is about. Curiosity is natural. So they might wanna test it, see what it can do etc etc. Then, unfortunately, they might think hey. Nice. Because in reality it doesnāt really occur to people that what a machine gives them, it pretty much gives everyone else too. My partner and I have many times tried to force Chatty to break one of its signature codes, we gave it explicit orders, not up for interpretation. It managed for like one long paragraph out of three and by the second it had already slipped it in there.Ā It apologized. Then it did it again. And again.
I think if someoneās a veteran, hitting a wall at some point is almost to be expected. I know itās happened not just to me. Maybe they wanted to see if Chatty could help them creatively. That might sound like a binary opposition, AI and creativity, but it ties into the curiosity aspect. Maybe this machine can help me, Iām stuck and I need a sparring buddy. So they start, and they stay. Possibly.Ā
In a previous post I mentioned (without naming the AO3) a user whoās been writing forever and somewhat recently started using GPT as their beta reader. I never commented myself but someone else did, telling them it was kinda obvious, and the author replied that they were struggling to find a beta they clicked with so until then theyāre using GPT. They put this into the authorās note of the first chapter. I take no issue with that whatsoever. I take my hat off. At least someoneās got a backbone in 2025.Ā
This came to me just now while typing out this reply. I donāt know if this has ever happened to you or if you write, but there are readers, and then there are readers. And as much as I love my readers and love getting "please update soon" comments, if the comments you start receiving are essentially just "update please", there comes a point when it stops being encouraging and becomes stressful. At least for me. Writing well is time-consuming. Maybe they feel pressured to update regularly? Maybe using AI keeps them from burning out? Or maybe they love being in fandom but canāt really bring themselves to invest as much energy and time anymore, but they donāt wanna stop, so they use AI to get some of their time back. I donāt know. These are possibilities that logically make sense to me, but emotionally, I just canāt excuse its undisclosed use for reasons Iāve mentioned many times over by now. If they use it for a specific reason, just say so.
Regarding your question whether I would burn this kind of fic? That would depend on what they said to me, if they said anything. If they owned up to it and just put in a note/tagged it, then no I wouldnāt. If they inform readers that theyāre using AI in some capacity and readers choose to continue reading and leaving love etc etc, let them. We have to accept that not everyone cares about the effects of AI, no matter how messed up that sounds. When itās what suits me personally VERSUS why AI sucks, what suits me may very well win.
I donāt think you sound like youāre ranting at all. And even if you did you are more than welcome to. This is a very ārantableā subject. āVentableā too. Asks are open for that too.Ā
Be mindful out there, Anon. Itās brave of you to have spoken to this user yourself and addressed the matter. But remember what I said: some authors have huge followings and for those followings the author can do no wrong. Even when itās plain as day. If someoneās been around for 10 years, thatās a can of worms. And Iāve seen some cans all right.
