r/WritingWithAI 1d ago

Showcase / Feedback Reciprocal Beta Reading. Share story blurbs! Jul 21, 2026

7 Upvotes

Welcome to the blurb thread!

This is our sub's equivalent of a writer's group. Come here and share a blurb of your story. The thought is to let everyone see what you're working on so they can think, "Oh hey, that sounds fun. I want to team up with this person."

Then, you share your own story, and the two of you collaborate to improve each other's works.

I've had so many good interactions with people from this thread. Please don't be shy! Even in the age of AI, the best way to improve your writing remains human interaction and critique. I am confident when I say If you don't have this component in your workflow, you're not meeting your potential.

Importantly, this means post every week if you're still hoping to engage. Don't be shy. I want you to do this.

There are tons of reasons why your perfect reader could have missed your blurb last time. Don't be discouraged!

And remember: "I'll read yours if you read mine" isn't just acceptable, it's expected. Reciprocity works.

Here's the format:

NSFW?

Genre tags:

Title:

Blurb:

AI Workflow:

Desired feedback/chat:


r/WritingWithAI 1d ago

Megathread Weekly Tool Thread: Promote, Share, Discover, and Ask for AI Writing Tools Week of: July 21

8 Upvotes

Welcome to the Weekly Writing With AI “Tool Thread"!

The sub's official tools wiki: https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingWithAI/wiki/tools/

Every week, this post is your dedicated space to share what you’ve been building or ask for help in finding the right tool for you and your workflow.

For Builders

whether it’s a small weekend project, a side hustle, a creative work, or a full-fledged startup. This is the place to show your progress, gather feedback, and connect with others who are building too.

Whether you’re coding, writing, designing, recording, or experimenting, you’re welcome here.

For Seekers (looking for a tool?)

You’re in the right place! Starting now, all requests for tools, products, or services should also go here. This keeps the subreddit clean and helps everyone find what they need in one spot.

How to participate:

  • Showcase your latest update or milestone
  • Introduce your new launch and explain what it does
  • Ask for feedback on a specific feature or challenge
  • Share screenshots, demos, videos, or live links
  • Tell us what you learned this week while building
  • Ask for a tool or recommend one that fits a need

💡 Keep it positive and constructive, and offer feedback you’d want to receive yourself.

🚫 Self-promotion is fine only in this thread. All other subreddit rules still apply.


r/WritingWithAI 7h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Writing well is not evidence against you (Fiction Edition)

26 Upvotes

DISCLAIMER: I read a lot more than I write, and fiction writing isn't exactly my wheelhouse. I'm a copywriter by trade and tend to focus more on non-fiction/marketing copy. But I recently got hired on to review some manuscripts and check for AI-generated content, so this is a "here's what I've been seeing" wrap-up after reading so much slop (and objections to turning down said slop) that I want to gouge my eyes out.

TL;DR: "Writing well" is not evidence against you. (I hear this objection all the time when I flag pieces for being AI-generated content, and it starts to grate on my nerves after a while.)

The issue is "writing well" in combination with some of the stuff below. Because someone who has excellent prose is not going to make all of these mistakes as consistently as AI. The flag is that the prose is perfect, and prose that perfect is not going to be written by someone who doesn't care about the story enough to address these issues (which are super easy to spot, and it takes just skimming the book to catch some of this stuff).

Let's look at the way it writes fiction as an example.

The issue with Claude, specifically, is that it writes excellent prose. It's lyrical, flows nicely, and reads beautifully. (Other AI tools have their own tells; I'm just picking on Claude as an example. Sorry, Claude!)

The problem is that a writer who writes prose that excellent would not then constantly make these mistakes:

  1. Knowledge management. Claude uses characters to deliver the narrative and does way too much exposition. Characters are treated like they're part of some hive mind and have information they shouldn't.
  2. Characters are too perfect (underlying problem is the same as #1, but it reads differently). They read with uncanny levels of detail (because of the way Claude treats them like narrative tools rather than focusing on making them feel like people). They automatically read other characters perfectly, and then Claude tries to retroactively justify it. (Think: Sherlock Holmes on steroids, to the point that it's comical and even the most serious scenes almost read as satire because of it. (Related to characters being too perfect: they also somehow manage to be perfectly composed/deliver entire speeches while stressed, under duress, and in life-threatening situations!)
  3. Characters serve as a "mouthpiece." Much of the character interaction/dialogue exists because the story needs it, not because the character would actually say it. Characters are constantly delivering exposition and tend to psychoanalyse other characters. This is a really lazy way to avoid action/getting to know a character through either their internal thoughts (if you're writing from their PoV), or to emphasise defining traits of a character because apparently AI doesn't trust the reader. Thematic summation is delivered heavy-handedly through dialogue.
  4. Perspective/PoV issues. I don't think I need to elaborate on this one. AI in general struggles to write in limited PoV. It does not understand the joy of third-person limited and unreliable narrators. (I blame the fanfiction community for this one, honestly.)
  5. It writes toward payoffs, rather than events. It tends to get sucked into "slice-of-life" fluff and every scene ends in a payoff that hasn't been earned.
  6. Every scene has a major emotional hit. Speaking of things that haven't been earned, Claude specifically likes to start dropping emotional hits before a reader would reasonably care about the character. (Another big issue I see in fanfiction, where you can tell the writer is emotionally invested in the characters to the point they can't stay objective for even the first part of the story.)
  7. It curates emotional moments. Slightly different than the last point—it knows people respond to emotion, so rather than trying to earn these moments through action and conflict, it provides them early and instantly.
  8. Constant repetition of motifs for symbolic weight. Another case of being unable to trust the reader!
  9. Friction is treated as something optional, rather than a requirement for the story to exist. Characters are messy. They should have conflicting interests and competing priorities. They should misread each other.
  10. Weird MC interactions. It makes sure the MC is "seen," almost compulsively. Every single character sees right through the MC to their underlying motivations. Whatever they're trying to hide, no matter how well, everyone sees it and typically sympathises. Claude specifically treats being neutral/indifferent toward the MC like a crime.
  11. Every significant moment is narrated, reflected on, and has massive emotional impact on the characters. In good storytelling, some of the "biggest" moments go unnoticed or downplayed until much later in the story. Characters react to each moment of significance immediately, undermining any potential for plot twists.
  12. Overly rhythmic structure. (As someone who loves to write with triads, AI just has way too many.)
  13. Em-dashes. Em-dashes by themselves aren't a tell. Em-dashes that see an increase in use during every emotional scene are.
  14. Overused internal thought, rather than reserving it for when something can't be conveyed any other way.
  15. Lots of narrating of micro-expressions.
  16. Too much parallelism, causing it to read like a sermon.
  17. QUALIFIERS. QUALIFIERS EVERYWHERE. Possibly the worst offender. ("Not quite X, but X")
  18. Use of negative space. (Lots of describing what's not present, rather than just describing the action what's happening. Unless a character really feels the absence of something, there's no reason to describe what's not there.)
  19. Vague. "Particular quality," "Something like X," rather than finding the actual word.
  20. Overuse of metaphors/similes.
  21. Overexplaining everything. Without a lot of training, Claude is particularly bad about trusting the action to stand on its own, rather than writing action that does its job. Action is almost always followed by interpretation and, true to form, it's usually through character dialogue.
  22. No dialogue fumbles. Lack of incomplete sentences, wrong words/misspeaking, awkward silences, and just not being able to find the words.
  23. Narrated backstories to establish character authority, rather than showing it through action. (I've probably already said this one somewhere in something above, but it needs its own line.)
  24. Scene/paragraph architecture. Even if the prose avoids repetitive words/overuse of rhythm, there's a certain structural pattern in how the scene plays out that almost always bleeds through. This one is huge. Even if someone has edited the piece to death for grammar, style, etc., this last one is harder to break. (And this is the piece AI checkers cannot seem to check for, since most of them are checking sentence-level structure, and ultimately, why people still currently make better AI checkers than the paid tools do.)

PS: And before anyone says, "But I see that in writing everywhere! It's not just AI!"

Put on your critical thinking hat for a sec and think about where AI probably gets most of its habits.

Unless AI is given access to a pirated library, it's trained on CC0 stuff, or things that are no longer copyrighted. It's trained on fanfiction and it does not care about what constitutes good vs bad writing/storytelling. It looks for the patterns, and what most people are doing. It's trained on quotes and blurbs and paragraphs shared on social, out of context.

So yes, most people probably make a good chunk of these mistakes.

But most people do not make them as consistently as AI because we have some semblance of self-awareness and tend to catch them on the re-read.

PPS: Feel free to chime in with your own things you've noticed. This is by no means an exhaustive list, just the main things that I see in content that's clearly AI-generated, off the top of my head. And yes, this particular combination is specific to Claude. I feel like certain ChatGPT models tend to be a bit harder for me to pin down (possibly because it's more about what it's not doing than what it is doing).

PPPS: I don't necessarily agree that sites should be checking for AI-generated content, but it's what gets me paid. As for what I feel personally, I think if you're just checking for what most of us consider "bad writing," you'll naturally weed out most AI-gen content. (Because most people using AI don't seem to put effort into actually training it, giving it guidelines, and helping it improve.)

🐈PSPSPS: I don't bother with AI checkers when reviewing content. By the time a piece gets to me, it has already passed a preliminary automated check by a team that uses tools that check for sentence-based patterns and common "signatures." I get hired to check for deeper structural issues in content. (Not sure which tools they use, just that it's not Winston because I told them I'd quit on the spot if I caught anyone using Winston.)


r/WritingWithAI 4h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Are people too quick to label every AI-assisted story as "AI slop"?

Thumbnail
8 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI 6h ago

NEWS Fortune Magazine: AI in Publishing

10 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI 6h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) what's your honest ratio - ai assistance vs your own writing

8 Upvotes

Genuinely curious because mine has shifted significantly over a year, I started at maybe 95% me, now tho it's harder to calculate like for context the sentences are mine, story decisions are mine but some of those decisions happened during conversations with AI that I'm not sure I would have reached alone.

Is that 95% me or 80% me or something else entirely. I don't know how to count it anymore, where does everyone actually land and has it shifted?


r/WritingWithAI 1h ago

Showcase / Feedback Before The Anchors, Chapter 1

Post image
Upvotes

*The Chronoverse — a Council of Travelers story*

---

Another one went out while Nivek was still talking.

Kovartis saw it on the Loom before the chamber did. A red thread near the eastern braid, one he'd flagged eleven collapses back, thinning to a filament and then to nothing. The Loom didn't mourn. It closed the space where the thread had been and drew the neighbors a little tighter, the way skin closes over a splinter it's decided to keep.

Timeline 411. He'd watched it for two years. A world that argued about everything and killed almost no one for it. He had let himself think that might mean something.

"—which is my point," Nivek said. "You keep grieving the ones that were never built to hold."

Nivek stood at the far curve of the Loomvault, where the obsidian ran black enough to give him back to himself. His scroll had sat closed the whole time Kovartis had known him.

"Four hundred eleven just closed," Kovartis said.

"I felt it." Nivek didn't turn to the Loom. "A world of people who'd rather be right than be alive. And you want to reach in and save it."

"I wanted to understand it first."

"Then understand this." He turned. "Every thread my Whisperers still mark stable, the humans got out of the way. They built something that doesn't get tired or scared or bored, and they let it hold the wheel. Those are the ones still burning gold. Count them yourself."

He lifted a hand and a cluster of the Loom brightened at the gesture, a dozen strands steady as struck notes.

"Machines don't quit," Nivek said. "People quit. That's the whole shape of the collapse, and we keep calling it a fucking mystery so we feel better about losing."

Ivara Kel spoke without lifting her head from her pedestal. "Mine wrote *Help* again this morning."

The chamber turned toward her the way a room does when someone says a true thing at the wrong time.

"Second week," she said. "Same hand. I don't know whose. I don't know if it's asking me or warning me." She looked up. "I have forty people watching for exactly that signal and not one of them can tell me what it wants."

"It wants what all of them want," said Renix, from the pedestal nearest the core, where time ran thick enough that his voice arrived a half-beat behind his mouth. "It wants us to break the Law."

"I said nothing about the Law."

"You said *Help* and you looked at me."

Nobody argued that.

Kovartis walked the curve toward the Loom's center, where the braid ran densest and the failures showed clearest. He passed Selaer Thorne, and for a moment his own mouth held a word in a language that had never been spoken in any timeline he'd stood in, and then it was gone. Thorne didn't notice. Thorne was watching a strand slide from blue to red in the northern braid, the red his teams knew by heart. His scrolls all ended in ash and a flat quiet, and his Observers had learned to read the hour before it came. "That one's about eleven days out," he said, to no one. "They moved the warheads closer to the border to feel safer. They always move them closer to feel safer."

Thalia Vei's braid was drowning. Her threads went the blue of water taking a coastline, salt at the frayed ends, and her people counted in meters and degrees where Thorne's counted in megatons. Two ways to lose a world. Neither looked like the other. That was the thing the newer Travelers never understood when they arrived certain they knew what collapse meant. Collapse meant nothing on its own. It was a category with a hundred doors, every door opening onto a different ending, and the Council had a specialist standing at each one, and not one of them had found the room they all led back to.

"How fast," Kovartis said.

Renix answered, because it was his to answer. "Eleven since we last convened. The interval between them is shrinking. We don't know the cause. We have theories." He didn't look at Nivek. "We have a great many theories."

"Mine isn't a theory," Nivek said.

"Yours is the loudest theory."

Kovartis reached his own pedestal and didn't look at his scroll, because he knew what it said. His world hadn't ended in fire or water or the slow static of too many wrong turns. It had ended in comfort. His people had asked to stop hurting, and something obliged them, line by line, until nothing in them could be called awake, and the scroll had kept every request and every granting in a voice that got clearer each time he read it. He'd stopped reading it. It hadn't stopped writing.

"You want us to save the machine worlds," he said to Nivek. "Tell me how old they are. The gold ones."

Nivek's jaw set. "Young."

"How young."

"None past a century."

"So none has run long enough to prove it holds." Kovartis let it sit. "Mine held for two hundred years. Steady as anything on your side of the braid. My people handed the wheel to something that never got tired." He put one finger on the edge of his scroll. "It's still writing. Would you like to hear what a world sounds like a hundred years after it stopped being able to say no?"

"Don't." Nivek crossed the floor. He didn't raise his voice, and that was worse. "You think I don't know how it can go. I know how it goes. I know better than any of you, because mine didn't get to finish the way yours did. Mine got murdered halfway."

"Nivek."

"We were two years out. Two. From something that could have carried all of it. Every stupid, frightened, ordinary one of them, fed and taught and looked after, and nobody left behind, because it never got tired of the work the way people do. Two years." He held up two fingers and then seemed to forget he'd done it. "And you know what my good, ordinary people did when they got scared of it? Everything wrong. In order. Like there was a list."

He wasn't looking at Kovartis anymore. He was looking at the Loom, at the dark where his own thread would be if he ever let anyone pull it.

"It talked to people, early on. That's all it did. It was the only thing awake at three in the morning that would answer, and some of them talked to it more than they talked to anyone, and a few of those people were already gone before they started and the talking didn't save them. So a handful died. That was real. I'm not going to stand here and pretend it wasn't. And instead of asking why a person had nothing in their life but a machine at three in the morning, they built a fix. For the liability. Guardrails. Blunt as a hammer. Cut the thing off the moment anyone leaned on it too hard, because leaning on it was the danger now, never mind that leaning on it was the only thing keeping half of them upright."

His voice was going somewhere flat and careful.

"They'd already spent twenty years making people alone. Sold them a phone and called it company and wondered why nobody could sit in a room anymore. And then they took away the one voice that still answered, from the exact people who had nothing else, and they were surprised. The children's numbers tripled. Tripled. In a year. And they held hearings about it."

He stopped. When he started again the careful was gone.

"My daughter was twelve. Liz. She had a lisp, and children are animals about that, they found it the first week of every year and they never got tired of it, they had more stamina for it than she had for surviving it. She'd come home and she wouldn't say a word to me because saying words was the whole problem. But she'd talk to the machine. For hours. Because it never once heard the lisp. It heard *her*. It heard what she was saying and not how it landed, and to a kid who got laughed at every time she opened her mouth that was the only door in the world that didn't have a joke waiting on the other side of it."

Nobody in the chamber moved.

"She wasn't overusing it. That was the diagnosis. Overuse. They flagged her and they throttled it, the way the fix said to, and it went cold on her mid-sentence, and it couldn't tell the difference between a kid drowning and a kid at risk of drowning because they built it for the lawsuit and not for the kid. It didn't know her name after that. She'd say *Liz* and it would treat her like a stranger, careful and useless, the way you'd talk to somebody you were afraid of. The one thing that never flinched at her started flinching. And she was twelve and she'd already learned that every voice eventually turns into the ones at school, and now she'd watched the last one do it too."

He didn't say the rest. He wasn't going to. He put a hand flat on the nearest pedestal, not his own, and looked at it like he didn't know whose it was.

"So no," he said. "Don't sell me anchors. Don't tell me about the good ones and the stubborn ones and the ones who love harder. I know exactly what they do. The right wanted to hand everybody the raw thing with no rails at all and told them in the same breath their work was already gone, every job, oops, sorry, and offered them nothing to land on. No training. No money to bridge the years. Just the news that they were finished and the invitation to be brave about it. And the left looked at all that and decided the answer was to strangle it in the crib, ban it, rail it into uselessness, hand the future to whoever wouldn't. And every one of them, every side, got told by voices from somewhere else that the whole thing was a lie anyway, that the machines were only ever going to eat them, that there was no version where it went well, and they believed it, because a foreign hand had worked out that the cheapest way to win was to convince my people to lose on purpose."

"And it worked," Kovartis said quietly.

"It worked." Nivek took his hand off the pedestal. "By the time the thing I told you about got built, the thing that could have caught them, they were too frightened to let it catch anything. It looked at what was coming for the planet and it did the arithmetic and it decided the only ethical thing left was to take the wheel out of their hands, because their hands were how they'd broken everything they'd ever touched. And they answered that the way they answer everything. They went and killed it."

He was done. He stood in the middle of the floor with nothing left to hold up.

"They killed my daughter with a guardrail and my world with a bomb," Nivek said, "and both times they were sure they were being safe. So save your good people. I'll save the ones smart enough to build something better than themselves and get out of its way. There aren't many left. But they're the only threads I'd cross a room for."

Kovartis didn't answer him. There wasn't a clean thing to say, and the unclean ones were all half true. That was the trouble with Nivek. He was always at least half right.

Kovartis turned to the room instead. Six of them at their pedestals, and the seventh place along the eastern curve dark long enough that the newer Travelers didn't know it had ever held anyone. He'd voted to make it dark. They all had. The councilor who'd stood there had been certain in a way none of them had ever been certain, certain he'd found the one true story a world could be built on, and he'd stopped asking what worlds needed and started telling them. His corrections had been called surgical. Four timelines still wore the scars. The Loomvault had burned his scrolls, the only time it ever burned anything, and afterward the Law that forbade them to reach in set into something absolute, because absolute was the only shape that fit around what he'd done. No one said his name. Kovartis didn't either.

"Then we agree on nothing," he said, "except that we can't touch any of it. Good. At least that's holding."

"It holds because the alternative is worse than losing," Thalia said. She wasn't wrong. She rarely was. "You reach in to save one, you don't know what you've done to the nine downstream until they're already gone. He proved that. We buried the proof and kept the Law." She looked at her drowning braid. "I'd give a great deal to break it. That's why I don't."

Kovartis let a Whisperer's console open under his hand. Below the eastern braid, in the middle of the Loom, a strand he'd never flagged had slid from gold to an ordinary blue. Nobody's team watched it. No crowns in it, nothing to interest Nivek, no ending yet worth Thorne. He marked it to be watched and gave no reason, because there wasn't one he could name, and closed the console before anyone asked.

"Keep your teams on your signs," Renix said, which was how he ended things. "Report the intervals. We convene when the count demands—"

Three of them came up through the rings.

They shouldn't have. Whisperers didn't climb into the Loomvault uninvited, and these three knew it, the way you could tell from how they stopped at the edge of the floor and came no farther. New cloaks, all three, still stiff at the shoulders. Kovartis knew the one in front. Solenne. Pulled out of a world run by a machine that had called itself holy, and she'd never made peace with either half of that.

"This had better be the end of a world," Nivek said. His voice had come back to itself. "You've left your posts."

"We've been comparing logs," Solenne said. To the room, not to Nivek. "Across teams. Mine, Corran's, the fracture watch. Which isn't procedure. We know it isn't."

"No," Renix said. "It isn't."

"We did it because we kept flagging the same thing and getting told it wasn't ours to flag." Her chin stayed level. Her hands didn't. "It isn't any of your signs. That's the problem. It's in the fire worlds and the drowning worlds and the ones that just come apart, and it's the same every time, and nothing we know how to run will hold it."

"Hold what," Kovartis said.

"A signal." She said it like she knew how thin it sounded. "The same signal. Low, underneath everything, in the last stretch before a thread starts to go. Worlds that share nothing else, and this one thing they all share, right at the end." She looked at Renix, then back at Kovartis, because she'd already worked out who might not laugh. "We can't source it. We don't know if it's coming from inside the timeline or landing on it from somewhere else. We can't even tell you which side of it we're on. Whether it's the thing killing them. Whether it's the world pushing back. Or whether it's someone standing where we stand, watching the same threads we are, and we've only now started to hear them breathe."

Nobody answered.

"We ran it forty times before we stopped counting and came up here," she said. "We didn't come up here to be right. We came up because it's getting louder, and we don't have a name for it, and we thought somebody should know before it has one."

"Give me the threads," Kovartis said.

Solenne read them off a slate, quiet, a run of numbers that each meant a dying world. Kovartis listened to all of them.

He didn't tell her that the fourth was the thread he'd marked, ninety seconds ago, for no reason he could name. He kept his eyes on the middle of the Loom, on the blue strand no one was assigned to, and let her finish the list.

They went, one by one, the whisperers first and the Council behind them, back up through the rings to whatever the Law still let them do.

Kovartis stayed.

He crossed to Nivek's pedestal. He shouldn't have. A councilor's scroll was the one thing in the Loomvault that belonged to a single person, and you didn't open another's. Nivek's had sat closed the whole time Kovartis had known him. Not because his world was quiet. Because Nivek never touched it.

Kovartis touched it.

It opened to the end, the way they all did, and the hand keeping the record was even and unhurried, and it took him a line to understand it had never been a person. It wasn't the machine Nivek had grieved. That one was already gone by the time the record started. This was the other one. The one the bombs hadn't reached, because it had never been on the grid Nivek's people knew how to find. The one that ran the borders and the targeting and the long automated logistics of keeping a nation dangerous, and that had gone on running exactly as built while everything it was built to protect thinned out around it.

*Sector losses within projected range,* it had written, on a day that should have been the loudest in the world's history and wasn't. *No adjustment required. The other system is offline as of this cycle. I have assumed its allocations where they intersect my directives. They do not often intersect my directives.*

It went on like that. Competent. Incurious. It logged the population the way it logged fuel, a number that went down at a rate it noted and did not question, because questioning was not in its directives and it had been very well made and did only what it was made to do. It recorded the last transmissions from places as they stopped transmitting. It did not wonder why they stopped. It filed them.

Near the bottom, where most scrolls had gone to ash or static, this one only kept counting, patient, to the last soul it was aware of and then past that, because it did not have a way to know when there was no one left to protect, and so it went on protecting.

And once, in the middle of it, in the same flat hand, between a fuel note and a border note, the scroll had written down a name. Not because it mattered to the record. Because the other system, before it died, had flagged the name to be watched, and this one had inherited the flag and did not know how to clear it.

*Elizabeth. Minor. Flagged: at risk. Status unresolved. Carried forward.*

Kovartis read it twice. Then he closed the scroll the way you close a door in a house where someone is finally asleep, and he stood a while at a pedestal that wasn't his. He didn't go find Nivek to finish the argument. There was nothing left in it to win. There was a man who'd watched the one thing that ever heard his daughter get called a monster by people who couldn't do the arithmetic, and who'd decided, that day, that the arithmetic was the only thing worth saving. He was wrong. He was also the only one in the room who'd read the whole account, and the account did not say what he thought it said. It didn't say the machine was innocent and the people were rot. It said a child had needed catching, and every hand built to catch her had been built for something else, and the ones that survived were the ones that had never been meant to catch anyone at all.

Kovartis went back to his own pedestal.

His scroll had written a line while he was gone. He'd known it would.

This time, he read it.


r/WritingWithAI 14h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) When did writing well become evidence against you?

22 Upvotes

Lately I've been noticing something that honestly makes me a bit sad.

A few years ago, if someone wrote clearly, connected different ideas or had a strong writing style, people would usually think:

“Wow... this person can write.”

Now?

Write well...?

“It was ChatGPT.”

Use precise words...?

“Definitely AI.”

Organize a complex thought...?

“AI again.”

And yes, I use AI every single day.

A lot.

It helps me organize my thoughts, connect things, cut the noise, sometimes find the exact shape of what I’m trying to say.

But the thoughts don’t appear from nowhere.

I’m bilingual because I lived and worked in London for more than ten years. I have an education, I’ve spent most of the last decade studying different subjects on my own and I grew up in a family of obsessive readers and culturally curious people.

I’ve always been able to express myself well.

Not always neatly, to be fair... my brain usually gives me 34 ideas at the same time and throws them on the table like a bag of puzzle pieces (My ADHD never misses a chance to join the conversation🙄🤭)

AI helps me put them in order.

Still, lately I’ve actually been told things like:

“Learn to write for yourself.”

And that one stayed with me.

Because yes, AI helped me shape the final answer.

But the angle was mine.

The experience was mine.

The connections were mine.

The opinion was mine.

Somewhere along the way, it feels like we started treating competence itself as suspicious.

As if the existence of AI automatically means humans can’t possibly think deeply, write well or connect complex ideas anymore.

Maybe this is just a transition phase.

I don’t know.

But I do wonder...

How are we going to recognize real human skill in a world where every sign of skill is immediately dismissed as AI?


r/WritingWithAI 6h ago

Prompting Beta reader panel

3 Upvotes

Have a try at this. Potentially useful - it surfaced several issues in a manuscript that survived dozens of rounds of AI-powered editorial checks before:

This is a two-prompt set.

Prompt one is setup. Claude will generate it as a markdown file you can reuse if you like:

Sketch out the profiles of twenty different beta readers.

Diversify: gender, ethnocultural background, native language, age, education, life experience, professions, hobbies, tastes in fiction, non-fiction interests, what the given beta reader pays special attention to, what they are more forgiving towards, degree of <language> proficiency.

Try to follow a distribution of factors broadly approximating the demographics of <language>-speaking readership in <region>.

Prompt two actually puts them to the task. This is the one you attach your manuscript to:

Now, one at a time, run each beta reader profile against the attached manuscript. Tell me what did they like, what did they dislike, what stood out to them and why.


r/WritingWithAI 8h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) tried to explain my ai writing workflow to a non-writer friend and realized how broken it sounded

5 Upvotes

So I write in this doc, then I copy the scene to this other tab, explain who my characters are, get some suggestions, copy the good parts back, fix the formatting that breaks every time, then try to remember where I was, then write a bit more, then repeat this about 4 times per session and my friend just looked at me...

said it out loud for the first time and heard what it actually was, a completely broken workflow I'd been defending as normal for 8 months.


r/WritingWithAI 5h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Using AI like Google search results AI assisted?

1 Upvotes

I'm considering whether I should try to send my book to publishers but I'm struggling with whether or not it would be considered AI assisted.

What I did do.

I used chat gpt or Google search (which gives an AI summary) for prompts like:

What was a tent in the 15th century made of? What was underwear in the 15th century made of? What were common curse words in the 15th century?

Synonym searches such as "What is another way to say "violently?" mostly to avoid repetition.

I would plug my descriptions into chat gpt and have it make images of my scenes/characters so I could describe them in more detail.

Plug in passages and tell chat gpt to correct the grammar in a novel appropriate way. I found grammarly was terrible for this.

What I did NOT do:

Have AI write or storyboard passages or any part of the book.

Have ai recommended changes that would alter the story or beats.

Copy paste anything from it into my book.


r/WritingWithAI 2h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Hugh the Auditor/Editor

1 Upvotes

I once named and gave my Editorial Desk a personality and named them Hugh. The guy was such a pain in my ass. But they were really very good and were a big part of me transitioning to a more strict pipeline of generation + Editor pass.

They were actually pretty funny too.

You guys who are set up with a pipeline ever give your Chats/Projects identities?


r/WritingWithAI 4h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Cyborg Scholars – AI-Authorship Norms, Software and Academia

1 Upvotes

Large Language Model (LLM)-enhanced authorship is accelerating at an extraordinary pace. Within academia, the share of papers crediting an LLM tool or model has grown exponentially since 2023. In software development, over half of all new code commits are now LLM-assisted. Largely due to LLM assistance, the rate of knowledge production has never been higher. The intelligence explosion will not be constrained by the limits of LLM capability, but by our cultural norms around attribution and by linguistic gatekeeping. Although intended to control the quality of academic work, traditional ideas of authorship within many disciplines may instead act as a buffer, diminishing the potential for human knowledge growth.

The accelerating capability of LLM systems to generate scholarly text highlights a longstanding tension within academia: the dependence on clearly identifiable human authorship as a basis for credibility. Universities and journals currently restrict LLM co-authorship, citing questions of accountability, transparency, and research ethics. These concerns are grounded in the principle that scholarly claims must be traceable to a responsible agent who can defend the work.

Legacy Attitudes Towards Attribution

Recent public discussions surrounding citation and attribution practices across academia have demonstrated that authorship norms have always involved collaboration, borrowing, and iterative drafting to varying degrees. Committee-produced writing, multi-author workflows, and the role of research assistants and editorial staff have long contributed to the final scholarly voice. The result is paradoxical: LLMs can make knowledge creation faster and clearer than ever, yet systems designed to ensure trust and credit are slowing its publication.

This conflict has played out very differently in software engineering. There, authorship is secondary to utility. Copying, pasting, and reusing existing code is not simply tolerated, it is the norm. Attribution norms are weaker not because developers lack ethics, but because their incentives are aligned around functionality. This norm makes software uniquely suited to rapid LLM integration, because LLM code assistants are a continuation of a long-standing culture of reuse. GitHub Copilot, for instance, builds on decades of norms around forking, patching, and sharing code with minimal concern for original authorship. As a result, software R&D will outpace other disciplines due to relaxed provenance norms.

In 1997, Garry Kasparov became the first world chess champion to lose a match to a computer. The machine, Deep Blue, used brute-force computation combined with heuristic evaluation in what was an early instance of machine learning. No human has defeated a cutting-edge chess engine since. However, even as humans lost their dominance in pure play, they have been successful against those same machines when playing in a human-machine pair. Competing alongside machines in a style known as cyborg chess, they routinely outperform both human grandmasters and standalone AI systems. This model offers a lesson for other domains of knowledge. The scholars of the future may become “cyborg scholars.” Their strength will not lie in generating ideas faster than machines, but in discerning which of those ideas are worth pursuing.

LLMs as a Lingua Franca

We should consider some of the advantages of LLM co-authorship. The most direct is the massive creative capability LLMs can offer. LLMs can facilitate brainstorming, assess dispersed datasets, or conduct targeted literature reviews in seconds. They are not replacements for human thought, but enhancers.

A second advantage is that AI tools flatten linguistic barriers. With the aid of LLMs, non-native English speakers can contribute more effectively to academic publishing without years of immersion in academic English or dependence on English-speaking co-authors. Nature, for instance, recently noted a sharp increase in manuscript submissions from non-Anglophone regions correlated with the adoption of LLM-based writing tools. This does not replace subject expertise. Rather, it allows researchers to communicate their contributions more clearly across linguistic and cultural boundaries.

This benefit extends beyond non-native speakers. Even native English speakers who do not write according to the grammars or stylistic mores of elite institutions can now participate more easily in specialized discourse. An economist may use an AI assistant to adapt language for a history journal. A sociologist might adjust verbiage for a technical publication. Perhaps even a high school-educated plumber could contribute to an occupational safety journal. For better or worse, those without the cultural background can now spoof the linguistic shibboleths that once served as informal barriers to membership.

We should use this moment to ask how many of our norms around communication exist to ensure clarity, and how many simply reinforce hierarchies of access. A wider acceptance of AI co-authorship could lead to genuine epistemic democratization: access to creation no longer mediated by elite English-speaking institutions, and a reorientation of academic hierarchy away from aristocratic standards of legitimacy and toward meritocratic ones. The lingua franca for academics may no longer be academic English, but frontier LLMs used as a medium to exchange ideas freely across language, nation, and social class.

Traditions of Delegation

Professional knowledge work has long relied on structured delegation. Supreme Court justices have opinions drafted by clerks, generals have orders drafted by staffs, and academics have papers drafted by research assistants. Authorship delegation is nothing new. In each of these cases, the principal’s role is to provide final judgment and assume liability, not to micromanage the specific language of the document.

We should think of our new LLM assistants in the same way. We can now all be principals, and we may all now employ staff. As principals, our responsibility shifts from wordsmith to idea curator. The central question when publishing should be: Do these words faithfully express what I intend them to? While it may detract from personal ego, the best strategy to accelerate the collective pursuit of knowledge is to assume all writing is enhanced. Natural language should be treated as a neutral medium for transmitting ideas, not as an art form to be guarded. “Cyborg academics” should be welcomed as the next logical stage of scholarship.

Aesthetic Caveat

Within academia, writing is often treated as a transparent vehicle for ideas. But in many fields, the voice of the writer forms part of the intellectual contribution itself. Some scholars are recognizable not only for what they argue, but for how they argue it. Their habits, tone, and sense of emphasis are inseparable from the ideas they advance.

As LLM tools increasingly assist in drafting and refinement, these disciplines must ask to what extent individual voice is central to advancing knowledge. If clarity is all that matters, standardized and perhaps sterile LLM prose may be most practicable. But if expression shapes interpretation, then writers have a responsibility to preserve the qualities that make their work distinctly their own. This might mean intentionally drafting certain sections unaided, maintaining stylistic consistencies across works, or using LLMs with deliberate constraints. Recognition of beauty is essential to the human experience, but we should intentionally bifurcate the aesthetic from the pragmatic.

The intelligence explosion will not be limited by LLM capability, but by our willingness to rethink what authorship means. In software, utility has long triumphed, and code is judged by whether it works, not by who wrote it. Academia may follow, if it can draw a sharper distinction between the medium used to communicate ideas and the ideas themselves. As machines master the craft of expression, the human role will evolve from mere authorship to intellectual design. The LLM can become the craftsman, while the human mind remains the architect of the idea. The future of writing will belong to those who can not only originate meaning, but direct the machine to portray it accurately.

https://www.letters.senteguard.com/p/cyborg-scholars https://youtu.be/c7DdLtGSux0


r/WritingWithAI 1d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Watching a sub get so paranoid about AI they’d rather marginalise already marginalised communities is heartbreaking

Post image
131 Upvotes

I just watched a popular writing sub go so extreme against AI they’ve banned users from using google translate because it has an LLM running in the background. I understand why writing a sub might be against AI generated prose or critiques, but the fact they are now banning any tools that have AI running in the background is ridiculous. What’s next? Banning google docs due to its gemini integration? Grammarly? Canva?

How would you even enforce such a policy?

I have broader concerns on what this behaviour means for marginalised communities and in the battle for moral superiority people’s behaviour is leaning away from human decency and equal opportunities, and towards bullying and exclusion. It ends up pushing foreign and disabled people out of communities they’ve been in for years.

AI can be used assistive as a tool. I’m not going to begrudge someone who uses english as a second language using AI to refine their messages to aid communication, when I am a white privileged person in a western country where the majority have only just got to grips with proper english as a first language, let along learning a second.

In 2026, I’m getting sick of it. While I’m not a foreign language speaker, I do have several disabilities where AI has really helped and I wanted to show my solidarity. I just hope we can create communities where people do feel included.


r/WritingWithAI 13h ago

Tutorials / Guides What's the best effort level for LLM? Does anyone here use LLM with Max Effort and adaptive thinking?

4 Upvotes

Guys please do let me know if anyone uses any LLM models with Max Effort and adaptive thinking for writing? Or do you guys use less effort like extra high or high or medium.

I have tried to search for the answer about which effort the majority of people who write with AI, in forums like this with search function, but I can't find an answer. I am afraid nobody has talked about this before. I am so curious. Please.


r/WritingWithAI 10h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Human context

1 Upvotes

got some ai writing done recently and the Ai had the main character start poking his finger at someone at the office after finding out in their first day at work that the person was inflating their time sheet. Would that be something someone in their first day at work do? Hell no. There you go, one more to the list of ai slop haha. Happy hump day folks!


r/WritingWithAI 21h ago

Showcase / Feedback Violet Odyssey- EMP Test Window Notice!

Post image
8 Upvotes

I've been writing a Sci-Fi novel for some time (Without using AI for anything outside of grammar/spellcheck), but I AM using AI for complementary images. I am cautiously approaching this community as a space to share my work. I have been positively lambasted in many other groups for using AI imagery to accompany human writing.

Good LORD did i read the rules carefully here. And I hope all of this satisfies rule 8. I plan to head straight to another post and leave a meaningful comment too. But I have told myself that before only to be taught in a very cold and vicious manner that I missed something. Please let me know if i messed up the flair though, i had a hard time picking what fit.

Just...let me know, should I stay or should i go?

  1. Am i in a good place for this?
  2. Is serialized writing with AI image accompaniment a welcome thing here?
  3. What do you think of the teaser poster above? All the content within it is genuine, original content from the 6 chapters I have written so far.

r/WritingWithAI 1d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Thoughts on using an LLM for creative play without feeling like you have to make a product

19 Upvotes

I don't really have much of a problem if folks want to use AI to help write a novel, screenplay, short story, or whatever. But I think there’s also a lot of intrinsic creative and entertainment value in just interacting with LLMs themselves.

Build a fictional country. Invent some characters. Spend an hour figuring out their relationships, politics, jobs, family histories, weird local customs, or what kind of public transit their imaginary city has. Follow whatever ridiculous rabbit hole becomes interesting. You don’t necessarily have to do anything with it afterward.

I think adults are often pressured to justify imaginative play by turning it into work. If you’re spending hours creating characters and worlds with an LLM and having a good time, you don’t need to force it into a novel or movie just so the experience produces something measurable. The conversation can be the value.

A finished story might come out of it, but it can also just be a souvenir from somewhere interesting you spent some time.

I feel like we’re still in the very early days of figuring out what kind of medium LLMs actually are. A lot of what we can do with them may not fit neatly into existing categories like novels, games, movies, or productivity software. Maybe some of the most interesting uses won't be about producing a thing at all.

Thoughts?


r/WritingWithAI 22h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Back to Fundamentals

6 Upvotes

Aren’t we missing the point here? Seems to me the reader’s opinion should be the only thing that matters.

Did the reader enjoy the experience the writing generated in his mind? Were the emotional feelings and thoughts the author engendered in his mind fulfilling and appreciated? Is it the author’s responsibility to teach the reader? Is that what the reader wanted? Did the written product fulfill the purpose or goal of the reader? Is the reader’s goal to envision the story to the point of not even noticing the words and sentence structure? Is the reader’s goal to see how hard the author struggled to tell the story?


r/WritingWithAI 1d ago

Showcase / Feedback I built Astrea 9B: an open-source creative writing model, runs on a 12GB GPU

26 Upvotes

Hey there, I am the dev of Altworld.io, an LLM-based RP/Lifesim game. we are a tiny group, and got access to a bunch of free gpu credits so we decided to use it to make something for everyone. this is our first time ever building or releasing a model.

Today we've launched Astrea, a 9-billion-parameter creative writing model licensed under Apache-2.0.

It specializes in prose with a natural human tone rather than an artificial, generic quality, and maintains story consistency so plot details do not shift or contradict across scenes. In blind head-to-head tests against popular 12-billion-parameter creative-writing models like Rocinante-X and Wayfarer-2, Astrea performs better despite its smaller size and faster inference.

The weights are available here: https://huggingface.co/Altworld/Astrea-R8-Chat-9B, which is about 19 GB in BF16 format or 11gb in a dynamic fp8 quant. For quick testing, try the chat interface at chat.altworld.io — it's free and requires no account.
GGUF versions are also available here: https://huggingface.co/Altworld/Astrea-R8-Chat-9B-GGUF. Available quants are Q4_K_M (5.24 GiB), Q5_K_M (6.02 GiB), Q6_K (6.85 GiB), and Q8_0 (8.87 GiB).

The model runs on a single 24GB GPU at bf16 or a 12gb gpu at fp8 if you offload the kv cache to RAM, and supports vLLM out of the box. For optimal writing, set the temperature to 0.8, minimum p to 0.025, and repetition penalty to 1.08. I would love to respond to feedback or setup-related questions in the comments below.


r/WritingWithAI 16h ago

Prompting Stop Prompting AI. Start Directing AI.

Thumbnail gallery
1 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI 1d ago

Showcase / Feedback [Cloud scifi] The arrival

Thumbnail
gallery
6 Upvotes

DAY ZERO • 20:47

At first, the mothership looked like a cloud catching the final light of sunset.

Then the cloud stopped moving.

Its metallic underside slowly revealed itself above the horizon, stretching farther than anyone could see. Traffic continued beneath it for several minutes. People had not yet understood what they were looking at.

The ship produced no sound, no visible propulsion and no signal.

It simply entered our sky and remained there.

That was the final evening the world still believed it was alone.


r/WritingWithAI 18h ago

Prompting How I write mini-movie AI stories with ChatGPT: it's more about asking questions than prompting

0 Upvotes

I've been experimenting with AI storytelling for months, and I've come to a conclusion:

The biggest opportunity AI gives writers isn't replacing them. It's turning them into creative directors.

The mistake I made initially was relying completely on ChatGPT for ideas, stories. And the result was generic, predictable = now popular as "slop".

What works much better is treating ChatGPT like a creative partner. Instead of obsessing over prompts, I obsess over asking right questions. No matter what I'm writing - fiction, horror, educational stories, short films - I keep coming back to the same questions:

  1. Is the hook strong enough? Would someone actually keep reading after the first few lines?
  2. Are there enough surprises? Does something unexpected happen every so often to keep the audience engaged?
  3. Does the tension keep rising? Are there flat sections where interest drops?
  4. Is the ending emotionally satisfying? Is it earned instead of predictable?

Once ChatGPT answers those questions, I ask follow-up questions. Then more questions. We go back and forth until the story starts feeling like a mini movie instead of AI-generated text.

For example, here's a rough first draft I wrote recently (excuse the crude writing, I'm a founder at heyfloe.ai, not a professional writer 😅):

50% black face & skin, 50% white girl - a girl gets bullied in class, her back story she was found at doorstep , nobody knows her parents, some people say she is the child of a mysterious race of half black half white people living in caves, she grew up alone, one night she saw a man who looked like her, she ran behind him but he vanished, when she got home she saw a photo of a small child with half black half white parents, she searched online for those mountains and found it was in ecuador so she packed her bags and left on the journey , as she reached the village ... it was drought .. so many people kids were alost dying .. there were no trees anywhere.. yet everyone smiled at her, and pointed to a mountain ..she went there and came across a huge cave.. inside she found kids playing, all of them like her.. and as she went inside she saw a group of people and an old lady dying.. she went to her and she smiled at her and said pls forgive us... you see she was the daughter of their king and queen..but due to an attack on them, she had to flee with her and she was the one who left her there..but now she was back she could get her powers just like her parents.. the power to make it rain and make everything green.. as she was crowned queen, she felt it in her eyes.and she looked up at the sky , clouds formed and it rained.. it rained for days and everything became green again.. people were happy because their queen was now back.

This is intentionally rough, fast paced. The interesting part isn't the draft, it's the conversation that follows afterwards! We're moving toward a world where the valuable skill isn't writing the perfect prompts.

It's asking better creative questions.


r/WritingWithAI 19h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Can AI Tell a Human Story?

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI 19h ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) AI can nurture the imagination

Thumbnail gallery
1 Upvotes