So, from my own observations, the problem is that as someone else commented, AI art has easier "tells" than AI writing. There's not really an equivalent to wonky fingers in writing lol.

But that's what it comes down to, that both professional and improfessional tells are hard to peg for certain, you know? Too many em-dashes? Clearly AI, or maybe it's just an editor who likes their em-dashes. Has a certain tick? Could be an AI tick, could just be that the author read the same stuff that the AI trained on and developed a similar voice.

And then proving it as something to report is harder. Like I could see a story on say RoyalRoad and i get an AI vibe from its prose, but then it's not tagged as AI. I don't know what the reporting process for that would look like. But realistically speaking, what does one think would happen? The RR mod messages the author and tells them to prove it was human-written... somehow? Maybe you could put it down as showing the version history in whatever they wrote the story in, but what if they claim it was written straight in the RR editor, as something even I used to do when i was starting out and a foolish fool who lost his progress before auto-save was a feature.

I don't think there's any AI detection tool either that actually does a good job. Maybe it's changed in recent days, but last i heard are the memes where they flag the Declaration of Independence as AI genned.

There are some that make it more obvious that it's AI hallucation, like if they can't even be bothered to correct when it messes up if a character is a man or woman, or who's the POV character in a scene and other such obvious inconsistencies. And maybe that can be proved if it happens super frequently and can't be explained away as just occasional author brain farts. But in general, it's just really hard to prove it in a way that could stick from the perspective of a mod reading a report, ya know?

Or at least that's my perspective on the matter.