Two years ago, while running for Justicar, I brought forward Artificial Intelligence (AI) as the top area I was concerned about for the future of the Brotherhood. In short order myself and my staff saw two cases related to the inappropriate use of AI.
In addition to these two cases the Chamber has investigated several situations of potential AI utilization for graphic competitions, Shadow Academy exams, fiction competitions, and utilization in Role Playing.
During the investigation of Case 071 the Chamber was consistently finding results of >90% on fictional submissions for AI utilization. In most cases, the results were 100%.
These results were consistent across multiple AI detector tools, ZeroGPT, Quillbot, and Grammarly to name a few. Further, the way the text read had an unnatural quality to it.
As the sands of Tatooine whispered tales of forgotten glory and untold riches, <redacted> found herself inexorably drawn towards the promise of adventure that beckoned from beyond the horizon. And though the path ahead remained shrouded in uncertainty, she knew that with each step she took, she drew closer to the fulfillment of her resolution.
Phrases like "fulfillment of her resolution" stand out as phrasing most human writers would not utilize. Now, in comparison, is a recent prompt I entered into ChatGPT.
Kamjin the Hutt felt a rare flicker of excitement as his ship approached Nal Hutta, the humid glow of the planet stirring memories he hadn’t visited in decades. Despite the grime and the politics, there was something comforting—almost nostalgic—about returning to the heart of Hutt space, where every deal, every betrayal, felt like coming home.
For those familiar with my writing, or just reading this report, you'll notice that my utilization of commas are similar to those in the above extract but the use of em dashes is not. However, when running this threw an AI detector, in this case ZeroGPT. It returns as 0% AI detected (e.g., 100% human writing).
Now, if I run the whole report, as written up to this point, it returns 11.14% AI and still detects the portion of writing from Case 071 as being generated by AI.
AI is still imperfect...or, phrased differently, is to perfect to be human. One of the biggest tells in AI generated content is the use of em dashes versus en dashes. Here, I'll turn to Copilot (AI) to explain the differences.
For most of us, humans, we end up using en dashes because typing programs (e.g., gDoc, Word, etc.) will automatically insert them when we place a regular - in between two items. It is rare for these documents to correct it to an em dash, which is longer, into the document nor is it easy to remember how to create an em dash if you're writing from a keyboard (ALT+0151 or writing -- in Word).
Now, this isn't a silver bullet as mobile keyboards tend to have a pop-up if you hold the hyphen key.
Before you all giggle, I'm referencing the sample size of the text. AI Detectors work best when there is a large sample size, such as in the thousands of words range, to review for consistency in writing. The larger the sample size the less likely the writing will be technically correct for a human writer.
What this means is that short answers - such as those utilized for the Shadow Academy or in Role Playing sessions where Discord has a word cap - is more likely to pop as AI. While researching a recent RP for suspected AI utilization I ran my own recent RP writing through ZeroGPT and found that I was consistently registering 40-60% for AI.
Let's all accept into the record that I am the least likely to utilizing AI for cheating at writing generating Hutt images.
So, where does that leave the Brotherhood in regard to AI? Candidly, not that much different than where we were before AI. The best detection for cheating remains the humancentric approach of researching the individual, their writing over time, and their general behavior.
For those who have judged fiction competitions can attest, you can tell when someone's writing in-person doesn't match their fiction writing and, if they've been submitting to competitions multiple times, if their writing style changes dramatically.
AI is a wonderful tool and, just as we do with other tools, cite your sources. For most of us, who consistently write, we have individuals who proof our writing. I cannot thank Reiden enough for all the times over the years that he's read my writing and corrected punctuation, grammar, and highlighted phrases/sentences/blocks of text that didn't read well.
We do not require people to cite that they had someone proof read their writing. However, if you're utilizing AI to proof read your writing (e.g., Grammarly) and you choose to replace sentences with AI rewritten sentences it is a good practice to note that you proofed your writing with AI. Competition organizers, especially those who have worked with me over the last few years, tend to run all the submissions through AI detectors (though this is not required).
While the above review cites fiction as a primary driver of AI utilization and recommends that individuals cite when they utilize AI to proof their submissions we have, so far, not delved into AI for artistic programs. The same practice should be carried forward.
Cite the utilization.
If you are creating an image and you use AI to insert a background or to clean up ink lines, cite those elements in the submission.
The goal here is not to invalidate all submission that utilize AI nor to push them fully into the realm of participation only. In an age where AI detectors are imperfect we want to minimize the potential for individuals to be flagged for suspected cheating. AI is here to stay. It has already become integrated into our daily lives and nearly all the applications or devices that we are utilizing.
We want people to use these tools to improve their work but not to replace their work!
I'd simplify it in these two examples.
As I noted above regarding sample sizes, here at the conclusion of this report, it reads as <2% AI utilization.
It is my hope that this helps give you greater insight into how the Chamber of Justice addresses
Meanwhile, if you have any questions relating to Brotherhood policies and the Covenant, or you just want to chat about any concerns, feel free to reach out by email ([Log in to view e-mail addresses]) or message me on Discord.
You need to be logged in to post comments
Authorized might be a better word than appropriate. I struggle to imagine a situation in which this is a better idea than just posting your report without fiction.
While there is only one known situation of it occurring, I would propose that when it's not utilized for clusters it's not an issue of the Chamber but a discussion between that Consul and the Grand Master/Deputy Grand Master if it were to become a recurring situation.
A great and valuable update regarding AI. I agree it is an impending doom in our society as fans, our work colleagues become affected daily by these platforms. But rather than ostracise the documents or images created as invalid or void, we can learn to adjust the platforms input on our human interaction. In essence, the moderate samples of AI is wise to move forward. But I fear this level of AI management, specifically those Ddas attacks, is something to monitor.
I've been doing my own research on the matter, running my own writing through AI detectors. I found that what you've posted tracks. I've long made use of em dash, something I picked up from authors such as David Gemmel to give texture to my work. Indeed, paragraphs and documents that use them have a higher frequency of false flags. Some of my shorter writing such as aspects have a tendency to get flagged as AI.
It's all quite fascinating and equally frustrating.
F--- AI.
As a genuine user/lover of em dash, I'm now concerned folks will clay me as AI, when the most I might be using is Gdoc's spell correct(if it has AI). Don't make me break up with em dashes cries (I probably should lol, likely use them incorrectly half the time xD)
Good info to know, thanks.
Frank Herbert tried to warn us all, the machines are learning.
In all seriousness, though, Pandora's box is open, and the only thing that's left inside is "Hope." While some AI Tools are generally non-invasive and helpful (Grammarly, Microsoft Editor, etc.), tools like ChatGPT, which supplant the writer entirely will continuously be a problem as their sample sizes and technologies grow. Much appreciation for the insight to the Chamber of Justice's outlook and approach to the subject.
To clarify, em dashes does not equal AI. No one should em dash shame.
What birb said.
Utilizing AI to create a clan fiction for a news report, that is not submitted for clusters and is cited - Appropriate
Here I was hoping this was going to be the first cited report. :P
Helpful video for the use of detecting AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ch4a6ffPZY
And cool song, just because:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
You could do what I do with my students: must use a google doc and must use one I have access to so I could track the history. Difficult? Yes. But if I see all the history and suddenly they've done 4 pages of writing in 10 minutes, I know it is a higher likelihood that they use AI and it raises my suspicion.
What is used for testing AI graphics? Most of the comps I do are graphic comps and having a way to test the entries would be beneficial.
I really appreciate the balanced and thoughtful approach to AI-generated content. It's refreshing to see someone recognize both the creative potential and the need for responsible use. Embracing innovation while staying mindful of ethics and originality is the kind of perspective that will shape a more meaningful future for art and technology alike.
Would be nice if there was a bit more active effort to avoid the use of AI, a bit more emphasis on carefully reading texts (or parts of them) helps. But yeah, the AI checkers are practically useless, detecting more human written content than AI blurps. I love em dashes, but I will start using them less.
Once you start replacing content that requires true sincerity, meaning and emotion with automatically (stolen) generated content, it'll just become a soulless bot vs. bot interaction.
For those who use it to generate ideas... well, they're going to be very generic. And for those who think it's a good way to have your thought process 'activated' by using AI, I have some bad news. It works maybe for one or two prompts, until addiction kicks in and completely rots your brain away. AI develops dependency, a bit like a drug.
AI is only going to work for a minuscule few people on top of the pyramid, who already knew how to grift. The less this place allows it, the longer it will exist. Human content and human interaction is going to be a premium in the near future (or already is).
Utilizing AI to create a clan fiction for a news report, that is not submitted for clusters and is cited - It's saddening to see that described as appropriate. It's not about the imaginary internet rewards but about the real message that sends to real people. It would be immensely disrespectful to the members of the clan and the leader that does this should not be surprised if their creative members are repulsed to the point of finding alternative clan membership.
The effort to address plagiarism machines is appreciated, but I would hope this would be the first step toward banning their use entirely. They have to be dealt with and we have to unfortunately adapt to their existence at this moment in time, but they are programs which reward those who want to have written works over actually enjoying writing itself.
To address Zentru'la's comment - appropriate may not have been the best term. Substitute instead that it is not an area for the Chamber of Justice to become involved. It would be appropriate for the Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, or member of their Summit to engage with the individual regarding their use of AI in that context.
Regarding Benn's question, I'll make that a topic of a future report.
What Aphotis said.
I also understand the use of AI in image generation for backgrounds or more tedious assets within a corporate or studio environment, even if I question how ethical the usage is (unless it’s AI trained on images and art with permission). But as it’s been replacing more and more artist jobs and work opportunities, especially freelancers who draw characters and for fandoms, it’d be nice to see the image generation side of AI usage fully discouraged in a creative hobby space. Not sure if that is applicable here since this focuses writing, but I felt it was worth mentioning.
AI is bad guys, trust me. It's not worth it