AI accusation against new authors > Likes and Comments

Today. Someone wrote a review on my published novel, Shella City, claiming it was written by AI.

his justification was weird : "The book is too flawless to be written by a new author!"

I'm fine with people rating low for not liking the story but providing inaccurate information while I spent more than two years from the moment I started writing early drafts and publishing after the 9th draft is disappointing.

He also claimed the book cover was AI generated although I have posted in Instagram and TikTok a video to show the book cover design process and it was made be a professional designer.

this accusation became a trend against new authors.

Hello, Bader.

I’m sorry that’s happened — especially when the reasoning doesn’t make much sense.

Unfortunately, I think this is something we’re all going to see more of. Readers are becoming more aware of AI, and sometimes that turns into suspicion, even when it isn’t justified.

My instinct would be not to escalate it too much. One review like that won’t do any real harm, but drawing attention to it might.

The best counter is to simply gather more genuine reviews over time. Once there’s a range of reader responses, a comment like that tends to fade into the background.

It’s frustrating, but I suspect this is just part of the landscape now.

Bader wrote: "I understand that there are a lot of new books generated by AI, but mine isn't and this accusation became a trend against new authors."

I agree with you entirely about the flood of Ai and Ghost written manuscripts but it's not just new authors, it anyone who "thinks" they have something to say. The new fad is writing books, 10 years ago it was everyone was a professional photographer. They don't want to learn the craft or they say "I'm too busy to sit down and write a book". So they pay someone to write for them and then put their name on the cover.

In the end they are selling their name not a quality truthful product. Many of the celebrities, politicians, and influencers who "write" memoirs, are in fact just trying to stay relevant at any cost in a ever changing world. Not that they have something of substance to add to the world.

I'm not saying ghost writers are bad, they have their place but there should be transparency. I have worked in the film industry for over 30 years and everybody gets a credit, same with the music industry, if you contribute, you get a credit for your input.

But I am finding the literary world is full of ghost written or Ai manuscripts and the genuine person who puts their time into learning the craft and making the time to sit down to write something are over shadowed by what I call peacocks. All show but little substance.

I would like to see a rule that written material have to disclose whether it is ghost written or Ai produced on the front cover.

My rant on the matter over :-)

To Rise Above Your Fear: One Season at a Time

Hello everyone, When I read some of the comments already posted, it became important to add a experience because I have first hand experience with the business: book-shelfie.com

But first I want to make this very clear, I am not pointing out the fracture of honesty with any malice but to make people aware of what is really going on with the business. I have obtained this information through solid research not emotional payback. It is a cautionary warning if you decide to engage.

Firstly, lets look at the profile of the person, Julia Harrow writing these posts She has two profiles but very little information and only posts to advertise her business. The photo she has for her profile, is actually a photo of Caroline Clarke, a British backpacker who was one of the victims of the Australian serial killer Ivan Milat. Proven by a police released photo at the time Caroline went missing.

The website; book-shelfie.com, I am sure was set up with good intentions of providing a place for indie authors to have their books showing to the public, plus it was free to upload the book.

Where the business is found wanting is they then started offering what they call "Professional Editorial Reviews", at a cost admittingly many indie writers could afford. Where they fall down, is they do not have the training or the discipline to run this part of their business. As one professional editor told me after reading the "Premium" review I paid for, "The quality of the review was something a student would hand in as a book review for homework, not something a professional reviewer would produce".

Then there is the way that the actual process is delivered, not keeping to the time frame they promise, no further correspondence from them after they have your money. Any follow up about the review is done in a fashion that is bordering on dismissive, very unprofessional.

So my conclusion, is they set out with an idea, and it was a admirable idea but then decided to monetise their operation, without any skill or qualifications. When their copy of what they were offering got challenged, instead of changing their practice or offering further details, their response is to double down with deflection. In the end buyer be aware, you could get a better review for free from a beta reader or from someone who has actually read your book.

Yesss, so much of my writing gets confused for AI by people and detectors, despite the fact that it is my natural writing style. I like having three adjectives, I like em dashes, and I LOVE lyrical writing - does that make me an LLM?

Bader wrote: "Today. Someone wrote a review on my published novel, Shella City, claiming it was written by AI.

his justification was weird : "The book is too flawless to be written by a new author!"

I'm fine w..."

Bader, I'm so sorry this happened to you. It's bad enough that book trolls exist and leave poor reviews because of personal reasons or inaccurate information, but for someone to accuse you of using AI, that's an all-time low and as a fellow author, I'm insulted for you. I know I would be appalled if someone suggested my new book or any of my books were written by AI.

It just goes to show you that even in the book world, people can't just be happy for us that we wrote an published a book. It's not an easy thing to do, in fact, I imagine the people who accuse others of using AI to write books probably would need to use AI themselves!

Best of luck to you with your new book, and don't let the book trolls get to you, stand your ground.

Anwita wrote: "Yesss, so much of my writing gets confused for AI by people and detectors, despite the fact that it is my natural writing style. I like having three adjectives, I like em dashes, and I LOVE lyrical..."

It might make us both LLMs, if that is the case.

Here's what I tell anyone who asks if I use AI/LLMs to write my books: Self-publishing takes too much g-d work for any text I didn't pour my heart and soul into! I do use AI/LLMs in other ways, usually to make up for skills that I lack, or chores that I detest (like writing a bio for any site, for instance). But if I'm going to put myself through all the trouble and angst to self-publish a book, you can darn well bet your mortgage on the fact that I wrote it! 😆

Anwita Verma wrote:  "... does that make me an LLM?"

A more worrying concern is that you may be unwittingly
deriving your style from your interactions with LLMs.

All apes are naturally imitative, and we're apes.

This thread has wandered through a lot of territory, and I wanted to add one angle I haven’t seen yet — something that sits underneath many of these AI‑accusation conversations.

I’m an editor, and in a mildly absurd twist, my professional accounts have been flagged as “bot‑like” by major platforms simply because of how I work: fast responses, consistent phrasing, and a perfectly ordinary reliance on caffeine. Apparently if you write cleanly and at speed, the algorithms start checking you for serial numbers. For the record, I’m fully human and have the sleep requirements to prove it.

That experience made me very aware of how easy it is for both platforms and people to misread signals. Clean prose, quick output, or an unusual writing rhythm can look “AI‑ish” even when it’s just someone who’s practiced or efficient. Suspicion isn’t evidence; it’s just suspicion.

And the fallout matters. False accusations don’t just sting — they discourage people from sharing their work, especially newer writers who already feel like they’re stepping onto the bridge of a starship without a manual. It also shifts the conversation away from craft and community and into policing, which rarely leads anywhere productive.

For me, the healthier direction is focusing on clarity and transparency rather than trying to guess who “looks human.” Most writers are here in good faith, and the tools we rely on — both social and technical — are far from perfect at telling the difference.

Sue wrote:  "Most writers are here in good faith ..."

There is collateral damage in every conflict.
That does not justify false accusations.
It does mean that you can't stop them, can't wish them away.

There is no community of writers.
There are local communities . . . in saturated genres.

Most humans are here in bad faith, to differing degrees.
You can say that it's because of the situations they're in.
Explaining it doesn't make it go away.
Writers are no better than most humans.

You miss a key aspect of the AI issue.
Humans are apes, we mimic.
There may be a trend of more and more people
writing more and more like AIs
simply due to increased exposure.
It would quickly become the standard.
Anyone who did not write like an AI would be sidelined.
But you already write like an AI,
so you have no such concern . . .

So let all the mockingbirds
start singing like car alarms.
Where's the harm in that?

People tend to forget one thing with AI. AI responses, etc. weren't created in a vacuum. They were trained by using authors' work, often without permission or compensation, and so authors get flagged as AI because AI is already similar or the same as their work.

I'm sure my books will come up as AI. Why? My books were used to train Meta's AI, and maybe others. And the "AI checkers" are also... AI. At the rate it's developing, I doubt it would find much that isn't flagged as AI.

Theresa wrote:  "... authors get flagged as AI because AI is already similar or the same as their work ..."

You assume that AI writing style is derived from AI training data.
That is a misconception.  Their style is programmed, not derived.

I'm curious, how do you prove one way or the other is a product was AI produced or not? I'm a new author, been writing for about a year. My cover of my first book is AI generated, I'm not and artist and because of who I worked with, I tried to save a few bucks and created my own cover. First one was horrible, but came up with a better one. My photo is also AI generated.

I will say that I'm proud of my story and the second and third book will be coming out soon. I have spent a lot of time writing, almost daily. Of course my word is all I have...

Janice wrote:  "... how do you prove one way or the other is a product was AI produced or not?"

How do you distinguish Hemingway from Steinbeck?
It's something we've been doing since long before computers existed.