Minor correction. There is actually one other group that feels entitled to submit things against the guidelines: plagiarists.

Experience. I've been receiving more of this nonsense than most and have seen the mistakes humans have been making for years. It's different and there are tells. (No, not em dashes or delve.) I also used to do data forensics on plagiarism cases, so I have some extra knowledge that comes into play.

And they routinely lie about it. We couldn't be more clear that we don't allow it, but they try anyway. The few that do admit it get very indignant and hostile. No one else behaves like them. Plenty of things not allowed in our guidelines. They are the only ones that feel entitled to submit anyway.

We've seen it from novice and established writers. Why? Embracing what they think could be a shortcut. Some novelty. Some probably aiming for a gotcha. Thing is, I've seen some of this stuff published. Most frequently flash and poetry which are harder to catch the tells for due to length.

Back in 2023, nearly all of it could be attributed to side-hustle culture. Non-writers misled into thinking this would be easy money by YouTube and TikTok "experts." In the last year, it's been more co-writing than fully-generated. More of it is coming from inside the SFF house now.

Their stated rule is: "Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination."

IGA said that it was initially submitted with a statement that no genAI was used. See their statement here:
bsky.app/profile/indi...

No, it overtly says that the org has abandoned the values of its members on a matter of professional importance.

If there's even the slightest doubt, it just ends in rejection like any other story not good enough to make the cut.

It's not about how you can catch someone. It's planning for when you do (be it now or later) and establishing the consequences. Saying that LLMs aren't allowed is reflection of a professional organization's values. (As is saying that they are allowed or that they won't do anything.)

Never underestimate what someone will do to win (or be nominated) an award. We've seen works slated onto ballots before, so leaving the door open is a mistake. Aside from that, firm rules establish a stance against the practice and should be the minimum expected from a professional org.

Do you know how many generated and partially-generated stories authors have tried to submit to Clarkesworld over the last three years? Thousands upon thousands. But they all check a box saying their story didn't use it. It's no longer just side-hustle crap and it's really depressing.

Yes. You have to wonder why they struggle so much with this. Reversing the policy is good, but it doesn't solve the underlying problems that led to the first version.

New update from SFWA.

My exact words when someone told me about this were more... colorful. :)

I'm well aware. We see it every day in slush, even though we specifically forbid it in our guidelines and contracts. We choose to stand our ground regardless of who crosses the line.

They could also cover themselves by stating they would revoke an award under those circumstances.

Doesn't excuse it.

Yes. Or listen to the audio.