3 ms·
With respect, I don't think anyone who writes publishable SF believes that generative AI on its own can write to Clarkesworld publishable quality.
by erehweb 3y ago
With respect, I don't think anyone who writes publishable SF believes that generative AI on its own can write to Clarkesworld publishable quality.
- dragonwriter 3y agoEven if no AI generated works are getting through, without access to the ground truth and empirical evidence that the “AI detection” heuristics + manual review are actually rejecting AI exclusively (or at least at a rate *higher than the rate at which AI works are represented among the subset of submissions below publishable quality), what this actually is is an arbitrary addition of lifetime bans for failing to meet arbitary quality standards with a single submission, masquerading as AI detection. Which is perfectly within Clarke’s rights, before the people making that argument jump in, but lets not pretend its anything other than what it is. Clarkesworld doesn't have a magical generative AI detecting ability that the solutions tested with access to the ground truth (which, yes, still suck pretty badly) lack.
- em-bee 3y agowe don't know what the criteria are, and we have to take their word for it that they are some obvious markers that something is AI generated, and as neil explains in the comments below: it includes many indicators that go beyond the story itself, so it is most certainly not just quality standards. also not having access to the criteria does not make them arbitrary. i trust that the criteria are well reasoned.