it’s annoying to me as a Fanfic Elder that y’all don’t understand how consent works in regards to reading fanfic
last night I saw a fic that had EIGHT of my favorite tags included and a great summary BUT it also contained a tag for a topic that bothers me. I weighed the pros/cons and decided NOT to read the fic because the ONE tag I disliked was something that could trigger a panic attack if the scene went into any sort of detail - it wasn’t worth risking the eight good tags.
from the first moment I noticed the fic to the moment I decided not to read it, the entire experience was MY RESPONSIBILITY. the author tagged the fic correctly, I knew what my limits were, and I respected them.
if you find a fic with tags you don’t like, JUST DON’T READ IT
don’t harass the author, don’t post a big whiny rant about it on Tumblr, just keep scrolling
Regarding this post: "AI and Fanfiction: Tools, Taboos, and Tectonic Shifts"
I hate AI, and choosing not to read it isn't a crime like you make it out to be (not you, ChatGPT, which wrote all of this out for you...).
Writing is supposed to be the fun part, not sitting down and watching as an AI generates it out for you. Thinking obsessively about characters, the world and the story is the fun part!
And people definitely hide their usage of AI, why can't it be the reader's choice to choose what they read? Why do you care that people read your AI slop? Why do you want people with different views than you to read it? Is it for the internet points?
I can't imagine wanting someone with such drastically differing opinions reading my stuff. Let alone begging for it out on the internet.
The point of using plot generators back in the day was for people to share ideas with each other, it was human written ideas for humans, not AI for humans. People like working together, it's a way to socialize and relate to others, and this is simply one of the ways people used to do it.
(I doubt anyone who hates AI uses Grammarly much anymore, considering it has labeled itself an AI writing tool; and I definitely don't trust it to not take my writing and put it into it's database.)
And as someone who has read (undisclosed) AI generated fics, I can genuinely feel my brain screaming out for something actually human written. There's been good ideas, but it simply is pure laziness and lack of determination to write. I write like a snail(on top of being disabled), but I would never consider writing with AI.
Do you genuinely read AI fanfiction yourself? Does it not get repetitive? Do you not hate how it's all the same dialogue, all over again?
And talking about changing up the wording, the dialogue, is fucking bold of you considering this entire thing is basically unedited AI slop. You didn't bother changing anything on this text post. I *so* badly want to see the original compared to what you ended posting, because I guarantee you it's barely different.
And we're not even getting into the ecological issues with AI.
I'm so sick of AI everywhere... (I sincerely hope this blog is satire.)
Hope you have a good day/night, though :) Thanks for letting me get my feelings out in this way(even if you don't read this), I really needed this.
Thanks for writing this out. I’m going to respond point by point, because there are a few assumptions here that don’t line up with what I actually said.
“Choosing not to read it isn’t a crime like you make it out to be”
I never said it was.
You’re absolutely free to not read AI-assisted fic. That’s always been the baseline in fandom: curate your own experience.
What I push back against is people telling others they shouldn’t write at all, or trying to shame them out of participating.
Those are two different things.
“Writing is supposed to be the fun part… thinking obsessively about characters is the fun part”
That’s true for you.
But not everyone experiences writing the same way.
A lot of people have no shortage of ideas — characters, scenes, entire plots — but struggle with actually putting those thoughts into words. Executive dysfunction, language barriers, fatigue, disability… those are real obstacles.
Using a tool to bridge that gap doesn’t mean they care less about their story. In many cases, it’s the opposite — they care enough to find a way to get it out.
“People hide their usage of AI… why can’t it be the reader’s choice?”
It is the reader’s choice.
No one is forcing you to read anything.
But when people do disclose their use of AI, they often get harassed for it. That creates an environment where honesty is punished and silence is safer.
That’s the problem.
“People like working together… it’s a way to socialize and relate to others.”
That applies to a lot of people — but not everyone.
Not everyone is comfortable sharing ideas.
Some people have been judged for their ships or interests.
Some write for very niche fandoms where there isn’t a community to collaborate with — assuming there’s a community at all. Not every interest comes with an active fandom space, or one that feels accessible.
Some worry about having their ideas taken or dismissed.
Some simply prefer to work alone.
And for some, social interaction itself is the barrier.
Collaboration is one way people create. It’s not the only one.
AI doesn’t replace collaboration — it gives an option to people who either can’t access it, or don’t want it.
Both can exist at the same time.
“I’m disabled… but AI writing is lazy and lacks determination”
I want to be careful here, because I hear what you’re saying about your own experience.
But this is where your argument contradicts itself.
You’re asking for your way of writing — slower, more difficult, shaped by disability — to be respected.
At the same time, you’re dismissing other people’s ways of navigating their own limitations as “lazy” or lacking effort.
Disability doesn’t look the same for everyone.
For some, writing slowly is manageable.
For others, getting words onto the page at all is the barrier.
For others, it’s editing, structuring, or maintaining coherence over long text.
Different people use different tools to bridge those gaps.
Calling that laziness doesn’t just target AI users — it echoes the same language often used against disabled people.
I don’t think that’s your intention.
But that’s the effect.
“Do you even read AI fic? Doesn’t it get repetitive?”
Honestly? I wouldn’t know in most cases — because most writers who use AI don’t disclose it.
I’ve only knowingly read one fic where the author explicitly said they used AI as part of their process. They wrote most of the draft themselves and used AI for editing.
Was it repetitive? Not at all.
The characters had substance. The plot was solid. The setting was well-crafted. You could tell the author cared about what they were writing.
And to be blunt — it was better than many fully human-written fics I’ve read, where:
dialogue gets repetitive
characters feel flat
the plot barely holds together
Not to mention how often I’ve dropped a fic because the lack of editing made it unreadable.
Not everyone has the same level of writing skill.
Some of those writers might turn to AI to make their work clearer, more readable, and more accessible.
And that’s not a bad thing.
At the end of the day, I don’t care what tools someone used.
If the story is good, I’ll read it.
And I’ll give kudos to the person who imagined it.
“This entire thing is basically unedited AI slop… I guarantee it’s barely different from the original.”
You don’t actually have a way to verify that.
You’re making a claim about my process based entirely on how the text feels to you.
That’s not evidence. That’s assumption.
And it’s exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about: deciding something is “AI” not because you can prove it, but because it fits a narrative.
Also, the blog very openly states what it is:
“Built with AI. Run by a human. Rooted in reality.”
AI is part of the process. That’s not hidden.
But “part of the process” doesn’t mean “no editing,” “no input,” or “no human involvement.” It means the final result is shaped and decided by a person.
You don’t have to like that process.
But assuming there is no process just because AI is involved doesn’t reflect how the work is actually made.
“And we’re not even getting into the ecological issues with AI.”
That’s a fair concern — AI does have an environmental cost.
But a few things get lost in how this is usually framed.
Most of the numbers circulating are estimates, not precise measurements. The technology is still evolving, infrastructure varies, and companies don’t disclose everything.
And AI isn’t unique in having a footprint.
Streaming, cloud storage, gaming, social media — all rely on the same infrastructure.
If the concern is environmental impact, it has to be applied consistently — not selectively to one tool people already dislike.
And more importantly: this is being used here as an extra justification to dismiss people’s creative work.
Those are two separate issues — and treating them as one doesn’t solve either.
“I’m so sick of AI everywhere… I hope this blog is satire.”
I get the fatigue.
AI is everywhere right now, and a lot of it is badly implemented, unnecessary, or driven by trend-chasing. Not everything needs AI.
We’ve seen this before.
The dot-com boom had the same energy: everything became “internet-enabled,” most of it didn’t last, and what remained were the tools that actually had a purpose.
AI will likely follow a similar pattern.
It’s not going to disappear — but the saturation will settle, and what remains will be what’s actually useful.
As for this blog: it’s not satire.
It’s built around a simple premise: AI is here, people are using it, and much of the discourse around it is driven by assumptions rather than evidence.
So the goal isn’t to hype AI up or pretend it’s harmless.
It’s to look at it critically, using actual research and real examples — and to push back against narratives that don’t hold up.
There’s already enough noise around this topic.
We’re trying to add clarity.
“even if you don’t read this”
I did read it.
And I’m replying.
That’s kind of the point of this blog — even when I disagree, I still engage with what people are saying. Not everyone will like the answers, but they’ll get one.
So yes — I saw this. And I hope getting it out helped, even if we don’t see things the same way.
Hope you have a good day/night too.
Prometheus.exe
For context, this builds on:
💬 0 🔁 7 ❤️ 10 · ✨ AI and Fanfiction: Tools, Taboos, and Tectonic Shifts · Let’s talk about AI and fanfiction.
Not in the apocalyptic sense
Also worth checking out:
💬 0 🔁 3 ❤️ 2 · AI and Authorship: Detectors, Disclosure, and the Coming Literary Witch Hunt · Let’s begin with an absurdity.
The Frankens
AI and Authorship: Detectors, Disclosure, and the Coming Literary Witch Hunt
Let’s begin with an absurdity.
The Frankenstein test
I recently came across a Tumblr post showing a paragraph from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein run through ZeroGPT, an AI checker, with the result coming back as 100% AI-generated.
Curious, I decided to replicate the experiment. I submitted the same paragraph to ZeroGPT and got the same result. I then ran it through Grammarly’s AI checker, which is often presented as more accurate, and it still came back as 48% AI-generated.
So apparently Mary Shelley writes like ChatGPT.
The real problem isn’t accuracy
That would be funny if it were not pointing to something uglier.
The problem is no longer just that AI detectors are unreliable.
It is that they are training people to become suspicious of writing itself.
Because once a nineteenth-century novel can be flagged as artificial, the issue is no longer detection.
It’s distrust.
What AI detectors actually do
AI detectors do not actually detect authorship.
They estimate the likelihood that a piece of writing resembles AI-generated text.
Grammarly says this outright:
no AI detector is 100% accurate
detectors do not track authorship
human-written text can be flagged as AI-generated
lightly edited AI text may evade detection
In other words, these tools do not prove who wrote something.
They produce a score — and people mistake that score for evidence.
When writing itself becomes suspicious
And that matters because writing is not a fingerprint.
A clean sentence is not a confession.
A formal tone is not proof of machine involvement.
A polished paragraph is not a chatbot in a trench coat.
If anything, the Frankenstein test shows how quickly
“this sounds artificial” becomes
“this sounds too structured, too literary, too controlled.”
Good writing starts to look suspicious simply because a machine can imitate some of its patterns.
This isn’t theoretical anymore
That problem gets even messier once we move from detectors to actual publishing.
AI use in writing is already real enough that major publishers and academic presses have formal disclosure policies for it.
Elsevier allows generative AI tools with human oversight and disclosure.
Oxford University Press requires authors to declare AI use and emphasizes transparency, quality, and trust.
So this is not some far-off scenario.
It is already here.
Authors are already using AI
Rie Kudan, winner of Japan’s Akutagawa Prize, said part of her novel was written with help from ChatGPT, with roughly 5% of the final text taken directly from the model.
That is not rumour.
That is an author saying it plainly.
There have also been cases where authors appeared to leave AI revision notes or prompt-like text inside published books.
Readers found such material in works by Lena McDonald and K.C. Crowne.
In McDonald’s case, a revision note referencing another author’s style was left in the text. She later acknowledged using AI to help “edit and shape” parts of the book because she could not afford a professional editor.
When suspicion has consequences
And then there is what happens when suspicion goes public.
In March 2026, Hachette pulled Mia Ballard’s forthcoming horror novel Shy Girl after a review found evidence of AI involvement.
Ballard denied using AI to write the book and said an editor had used it on an earlier version.
Whether one sees that case as proof, misunderstanding, or cautionary tale, it shows something important:
Accusations of AI use now have real consequences in publishing.
The gap between proof and suspicion
This is where the real danger begins.
If detectors cannot prove authorship, and readers cannot reliably tell whether a text was human-written, AI-assisted, or machine-generated, then something else fills the gap:
Suspicion.
And suspicion is a terrible editor.
It flattens everything:
brainstorming
editing
outlining
drafting
into one accusation.
The literary witch hunt
In publishing, this creates the conditions for a literary witch hunt.
Because once the question becomes
“Can you prove this was written by a human?”
the burden shifts in a way no writer can satisfy.
If the prose is awkward → suspicious.
If the prose is too polished → suspicious.
If you disclose AI use → condemned.
If you don’t → accused of hiding it.
The Authors Guild has made it clear that writers already see AI as a major professional issue.
Even Amazon’s KDP disclosure policy has been described as only a first step.
That alone tells you something fundamental:
The ground is moving under authors’ feet.
The uncomfortable truth
The problem is not just that some authors use AI.
It is that the only time readers can be sure
is when someone forgets to delete the evidence.
Final thought
In trying to prove what is human,
we may end up making human writing itself suspect.
Sources / further reading
Grammarly — AI Detector
On the limits of AI detection, including false positives and the fact that detectors do not verify authorship.
Elsevier — The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing
Elsevier’s policy on disclosure and acceptable use of generative AI in writing.
Oxford University Press — Author use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
OUP’s guidance on transparency and disclosure for AI use in publishing.
The Authors Guild — Artificial Intelligence
The Authors Guild’s advocacy page on AI, authorship, contracts, and industry concerns.
Smithsonian Magazine — ChatGPT Helped Write This Award-Winning Japanese Novel
On Rie Kudan’s public admission that part of her prize-winning novel used ChatGPT.
Fast Company — AI prompts left in published books; authors respond to controversy
On AI prompt-like text and revision notes being found in published books.
Publishers Weekly — As AI Discourse Rages, Publishing Has More Questions Than Answers
On the wider fallout around AI accusations in publishing, including the Shy Girl case.
Amazon KDP — Content Guidelines
Amazon’s policy distinguishing AI-generated from AI-assisted content.
So I'm not entirely sure where I stand in terms of the ethics of making cuties, but I will say there is WAY less sexual stuff than people made it out to be, it's mostly kids doing kid things, and I think it was all contextualized as properly and tastefully as it could have been.
THAT BEING SAID I do have some questions
1. Is it ever acceptable to portray sexualized children in a movie?
2. To what extent is it acceptable to portray sexualized children in a movie critiquing the sexualization of children?
2b. Does the party doing the sexualizing affect how acceptable it is to portray sexualized children in a movie? (E.g. An adult sexualizing a child by the way they treat her vs. A child acting in a promiscuous manner)
2c. To what extent is it okay to show sexually charged footage of children in a movie (vs sexually charged language, suggestive background music, sexualized environment)
3. Obviously Cuties is a live action movie so real actresses were involved in the making of some rather suggestive scenes. To what extent would those suggestive scenes be more ethical if it was an animated movie instead of live action?
3b. Is it more unethical for children characters to behave promiscuously in a movie made for adults vs a movie made for tweens?
I haven’t played a video game since 1991, but I’m tickled by the concept of a horrible goose with a to-do list. So my weekend was fairly productive on the housework and acquiring-new-sh…
In which I dust off my Thomas Hardy rant and plan dinner.
Don't speak for those whose voices were stolen by circumstance. And if you do speak for them, do it well: talk to the right people, represent them completely, and pay them back with whatever means that may suit them. Better yet, help them find their own voice, so that they may tell their stories the way that they are meant to be told
New Post has been published on http://www.professionalletterwriting.net/how-it-says-vs-how-people-read-letter-writing-ethics/
How It Says vs How People Read: Letter Writing Ethics
Image credit: krugsstudio.blogspot.com
Writing ethically is of the utmost importance. If you don’t learn the rules and manners of writing, then you’ll make a bad impression, cause people to dislike you and make it to the list of funny formal letters. But often, letter-writing etiquette is not taught outright. One is left to guess what is right and what is wrong. To clarify the confusion, here is a guide to help you.
Writing Ethics – General
When you are writing, one of the most important ethical concerns is plagiarism. Plagiarism strips your credibility and is a quick way to get people to distrust you. Even if you’re writing a letter, you might find yourself tempted to use phrases from a template or formatting guide that you yourself did not come up with. This is unethical. Using a template is fine, but all of the words that you write must be your own. You, as a writer, must completely rephrase anything you borrow and then give credit; if you quote, you must give credit in more detail as well.
Remember, writing ethically involves
Using primarily your own words
Giving credit when you use someone else’s words in any way
Hence, if you borrow a phrase, you must say where you got it from. If you can’t do that, don’t borrow anything.
Business Ethics Letter Writing
The ethics for writing business letters are somewhat more specific. Avoid these five things to maintain best practices for letter writing and to conform to etiquette.
Negative tone: Be courteous and sincere, not sarcastic. No matter how angry you are, always be polite and as
Passive voice: Overuse of the passive voice leads a letter to sound chilly and distant. Be direct – “The company must refuse your request”, not “your request has been refused.”
Discrimination: Any reference to a personal quality of another person could be discriminatory. Don’t refer to age, gender, sexuality, or any other such factors.
Negative words: In a negative letter, begin with “Thank you” and go on to state in clear words why you are not able to fulfill the request. Explain why you are denying the request, without using words like “unfortunately”. This avoids a negative tone.
Excessive use of first person pronouns: When writing a letter, especially a rejection or refusal letter, avoid first person pronouns (such as “I” and “me”). You can use them once or twice if necessary, but whenever possible, rephrase to leave yourself out.
Create Ethical Business Letters
When you write business letters that are solid and ethical, you’re investing in your future success. People will begin to trust you more, and you’ll find yourself with a better reputation. That is one of the most valuable things you can cultivate as a professional. Do yourself a favor – practice these ethics or at least hire a professional letter writer.
To increase your knowledge of letter writing ethics and write the best correspondence, contact us now!
