Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by Veen on Thursday March 23, 2023 @12:58PM (#35277699)

Unfortunately, I think this is a losing battle. They can't scale the number of human readers checking for story quality, and AI can scale almost limitlessly. Automated AI detection simply doesn't work. I've experimented with all the main AI detectors, and they are woefully inaccurate, especially with GPT-4 content.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by yamtaddle on Thursday March 23, 2023 @01:39PM (#35278411)

All these publications constantly complain about being swamped with submissions, even pre-AI.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by ericbarrett on Thursday March 23, 2023 @01:53PM (#35278643)

Riffing on "mail-only", I'd further suggest:

- 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by ghaff on Thursday March 23, 2023 @02:01PM (#35278786)

As someone who has been on a lot of conference committees, I wouldn't necessarily require proposals to be sent physically; that would create a lot of work for us. But I do favor limiting the # per person and asking questions other than just the standard abstract that might discourage people who are just spamming everything in sight. Friction isn't always a bad thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by ericbarrett on Thursday March 23, 2023 @02:14PM (#35278992)

I don't know that the extra work will be avoidable in the future. I think anything with a public API is going to be gamed and spammed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by ghaff on Thursday March 23, 2023 @01:28PM (#35278198)

>Automated AI detection simply doesn't work.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by neuropsha on Thursday March 23, 2023 @01:16PM (#35277995)

I don’t know why you’ve been downvoted. You are, sadly, right. Being a reader for a publication or literary agent was already a gruelling job before AI made the slush problem a hundred times worse. They don’t go into the role wanting to fire off form rejections, but there is too much hopeless perma-slush for them to do much else.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by 13years on Thursday March 23, 2023 @01:59PM (#35278746)

Unfortunately, I think this is a losing battle.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by idiotsecant on Thursday March 23, 2023 @02:37PM (#35279332)

The answer to this seems simple - require a micropayment along with the submittal. tune the amount until it's not worth spamming anymore. Return the payment when the submittal is accepted or rejected. Consider keeping the payment when the submittal is clearly AI or low quality spam.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clarkesworld AI Submissions Update by em-bee on Thursday March 23, 2023 @02:45PM (#35279443)

one of the important aspects for clarkesworld is international submissions. unfortunately , while technology for micropayments exist even in eg. many african countries, i haven't yet seen any micropayment system that works globally without high transaction costs.

[ Parent | on HN ]