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.
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.
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.
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.