> The fact of the matter is that we have rules. Every publication has rules. Our rules say we don’t want generated content. They also say that we don’t want horror. If someone submits horror, you wouldn’t have a problem with me completely ignoring them, so what’s the problem here?

I hope they can remain open, but I have my doubts. In the end, there's money attached to it, and if people can take a shortcut on their way to make money - even when it's against the rules - they will. To use their analogy, if there's a chance people will make $1,000 by throwing away a fork, that fork's going in the trash.

As these models improve, I'm skeptical that we'll be able to differentiate human-written works from an edited work generated by a skilled LLM operator. It's already trivial to generate fiction content that scores as "100% human" on analysis tools.

However, sci-fi short stories are a particularly interesting case - by their very nature they are about investigating uniquely human experiences by using speculation to amplify things humans think, feel, and experience. A machine can never do that wholesale. But, what about a machine in tandem with a human that is articulating how they feel, and a premise?

This essay, which is the most in-depth analysis of this problem I’ve found so far, suggests that we’ll have to find an automated way to filter for quality, because AI-generated content is only going to get more sophisticated: https://antipodes.substack.com/p/ai-will-kill-literature-and...

The endgame seems to be the widespread deployment of AI autograders that, while they won’t be able to judge literary merit, will at least be as good as the current, mostly social, signals used today.

I will read the substack later as I am interested in this, but the feeling I get when I walk into a bookshop today with all the 'read me! read me!' marketing that inevitably gets pushed for whatever trendy book of the day is in whatever number 1 bestseller list or Costa Prize, along with the realisation that in 10 lifetimes I'd probably not read the books in this shop i am stood in, that this is no different to what some people think AI will do to literature.

It may make some authors not bother (or some people not bothering to become authors) but I already am overwhelmed with what I can/must/should/might read and have to deal with it now, so AI killing literature I don't think will happen.

If it makes less authors turn out the junk that fills much of the shelves I have to peruse at the moment then all the better, but I don't think I will be seeing books on shelves predominantly by AI authors.

To digress slightly, reading physical media vs online/digital does help focus one's mind in terms of taking the effort to choose what to read than the easy-grazing that can happen online. I saw a similar comment the other day to this in reference to someone getting a weekly physical paper as a good way to keep up with 'news' without being overwhelmed by online news and all the dross that brings.

That sounds a lot like so many of the "this technology will never replace X", like, for example, digital cameras.

The technology frequently does.

AI authors means to replace actual writers, and that's quite different.

as with the photoshop example elsewhere, it may be that more writers will use AI tools to help them, which, if done with care, may be good, that's quite different from letting an AI do all the writing. while clarkesworld currently rejects any AI involvement, someone using an AI to explore ideas or prepare an outline may be harder to detect and eventually something like that may be published, but i hope they will be successful in eliminating any AI only submissions.

The top-tier ones should probably switch to mail-only for unknowns, with an allow-list of authors (those they've previously published, or whom they've rejected but are very interested in seeing more from) who may submit electronically. Hell, they probably should have before this.

- Include a printout of the story in the submission packet (shipping costs)

- Also require a signed (and perhaps notarized) affidavit stating that it's entirely the author's own work*

- Require a header/submission form to be filled out by hand (this can be verified quickly with a magnifying glass)

It's not perfect; the story could still be generated by AI, for example, and autopens exist. But it would put a very manual cost and effort barrier in front of their submission process, that IMO is still not so high as to discourage legitimate entrants.

* Obviously this should be informed by legal counsel, I am not a lawyer, etc.

When did this change? As of 2 or 3 months ago, OpenAI's tool seemed pretty reliable at separating 100% ChatGPT content from 0%. Of course, past some level of a human using a generative AI and editing it and augmenting it, it's harder. And outside of certain artificial constraints in places like schools, it's not clear that using a generative AI assistant is even "wrong." Though to the degree that floods the web, publications, conference proposals, etc. with content that is just "OK" it makes the job of people filtering it who are already flooded with mediocre but not necessarily bad content that much harder.

We’re going to end up with AI autograders (for quality as much as provenance) as a first pass before a human read. On the other hand, if the AIs are selective enough, they can guarantee that each passing submission can be afforded a serious, deep read… which isn’t the case right now unfortunately.

This is just a narrow representation of what is to come. Everything positioned against AI will be a losing battle. It is a skill/creativity replicator and that concept breaks the existing model of everything.

We have all the necessary technology to do this today cleanly and efficiently. If we don't it's a social problem, not a technical one.

currently they have multiple slush readers, and depending on volume they could engage more as long as the volume does not grow indefinitely.

btw, here is a thread that gives some insights how slush reading works: https://www.fantasy-writers.org/forum/slushpile-answers-clar...

I'm pleased that there is push back against this, but I don't think the people championing GPT are willing or even able to listen.

It's not clear that real meaning from the writer as opposed to the appearance of meaning matters as far as how well the story works to get the reader to generate their own meaning.

I've had many stories rejected by Clarkesworld. but if I submitted something so bad they assumed GPT wrote it, I might die on the spot.

You could front-load this requirement, of course: provide proof of identity (tech already exists), then legally vouch for authorship at time of submission.

TL;DR: Raise the barrier to entry, instead of scaling the ability to review.

Who in the world is going to sue someone for submitting an AI-generated story to a sci-fi magazine? Who has the time, resources, and motive? You may as well just ask everyone to pinky promise that they didn’t use AI.

And worse, I have my doubts that it would even work. See: counterfeiters on Amazon.

as far as i understand clarkesworld submission rules, you may submit and be published under a pen name, but have to reveal your real identity to the magazine, which they will keep to themselves

While a lot of this writing is spam trying to make easy money, I do think that some people are doing cyborg writing in good faith and would happily report their writing as such.

I mean, how many people use Grammarly? Doesn't that suggest changes to test based on (somewhat) ai?

I think methods similar to this will become more popular with writers.