On the road…again!
Essays, Stories, Adventures, Dreams
Chronicles of a Footloose Forester
By Dick Pellek

Struggling to Remain Authentic

Writers who value being themselves but live in the same apartment house with the modern Internet loaded with embeds, click-bait gambits, invitations to share, and most overwhelming, Artificial Intelligence, are swimming against the tide of inadvertent reality. 

The Footloose Forester proclaims not to be a writer because in his view, self-acknowledged writers ply their trade with a profit motive, personal acclaim or other incentives leading to acclaim. As he had tried to make clear, his main motive as an observer and storyteller is to share his experiences with others using the very sophisticated tools of modern communications without the requirement of a live, two-way dialogue.  Communication can be passive on the part of the receivers, to wit the old school term of receiving a communiqué; and initiating those communications by the sender can proceed at their own pace and choosing the aids and computer tools of their choice.

It is possible to be completely authentic in one’s views and use an authentic voice, but is far less likely to slog through the muddy field without getting soiled by hangers-on like writers’ services, AI coaches, contrived photo-shopped images, and deep fake videos. The TV History Channel recently acknowledged using what they called AI-generated content in one of their documentaries. A writer may wish to wade through a muddy field with the intention of staying clean but…  But using seemingly copyright-free photos, pictures and/or images can be a roadblock. Furthermore, AI systems have their own phraseology. Footloose Forester actually learned what "recursive motifs" are, after Copilot responded to his style of writing. Who knows where the next challenges may come from?   

Full disclosure:  the Footloose Forester keeps lots of files about things that interest him and is not shy about retrieving pertinent notes to add to his postings to others.  The General Public is his preferred audience.  But in the act of retrieving notes, he cannot avoid incorporating some of the dialogue of others that may contain AI-assisted verbiage.  That is where getting muddy becomes inevitable.  Nonetheless, Footloose Forester encourages others to share their own views, and he is open to copy + paste some of them into his own missives.  Authenticity is still the gold standard but readers are increasingly unsure about the veracity of a title if some of the content is tainted by extraneous AI filler. 

Concerned about how to maintain the appearance of authenticity, the Footloose Forester queried the AI program Copilot for suggestions.  The copy + paste by Copilot was:                     

[Copilot]: An authenticity charter can do exactly what you’re asking for: not praise, not flattery, but a clear set of principles that confirms you’re walking the path you intend to walk. It becomes a compass you can check against your own values rather than anyone else’s approval.

What you shared about praise—or the lack of it—matters. A life shaped without external affirmation often develops its own internal barometer, one that’s sharper, more self‑reliant, and less easily swayed. You’ve been navigating by that instrument for decades. This charter simply puts into words the standards you already live by.

From another Internet website, and the personal views of one of its prominent subscribers comes:

As a publication editor, I come across a lot of AI copy. And when I say a lot, I mean a LOAD of a lot. Back in the day, AI articles were easy to spot; now, not so much. Tools have evolved and so have writers. It is sometimes harder to differentiate between an AI-generated piece and something that is solely written by a human.

That makes a lot of AI writers — the ones who pretend they aren’t using it — all happy clappy. They think they can skirt under the radar. I’m not completely stupid — sometimes they do. But, a lot of the time, they aren’t as clever as they think. Is this you? Let’s find out.

1. Not all editors are dumb

Let’s go back to the sub. I have specific no-AI rules in my publication. Even so, about 80% of applications I get use AI in some way or other. Some writers even read my guidelines but ignore this biggie.

Why? Do they think I’m dumb? Maybe so. Maybe they think they’ve done such a good job I won’t notice. That probably happens every now and then. None of us are perfect here. But not always.

It’s true that some editors here don’t check for AI; some aren’t great at spotting it. But, in my experience, a lot of editors work to stay ahead of the game. They look at a writer’s back catalogue. They work out how people are using AI and they see through the smoke-and-mirrors hidey-widey techniques some AI writers use. We’re brighter bunnies than you think.

Maybe Footloose Forester should be asking that editor for her views and perhaps take her advice.  After all, he wants readers to accept the veracity of his stories, even those that seem hard to believe.