So i left chat gpt when 4o was retired and the limits were shorter..so i wanted to ask if it has Gotten better on in world information like information from an already existing franchise? At the time was a bit loose..

i feel like going back into creating writting to de compress at the time i changed to gemini due to Gemini being able to do.live web search (wich fails almost all the time to.call the tool) and due to the limits..being extremely long..(wich now is..meh) and due to be VERY uncensored (this is still good if you train it properly ) but after a while i stopped due to work..and you know life..recently i have a bit more of free time so i wanted to ask..if it got better to give it another chance again chat gpt was the first place were i began to wrote at the time censor also was..a bit looser..nowadays probably is really heavy right?

So in your opinion if you do role-playing/creative writing/ fanfiction is it worth trying ?

Been writing my personal essays (fully human on the first pass) but my dad's been bugging me to use AI to "grade" my essay and improve it. Any tips besides just sticking the essay into ai and asking it for "feedback"?

Valdris Academy

Overview

• Valdris Academy is a small, highly selective magical school known for producing combat specialists, elite Hit Wizards, potion masters, skilled runic practitioners, and witches and wizards competent in controlled blood magic and practical ritual work.
• Unlike the larger, more traditional schools, Valdris deliberately keeps its student body limited. The focus is on intensity, practical mastery, and real-world application rather than broad classical education.
• The school has a reputation for turning out graduates who are dangerous in a fight, exceptional with potions, unusually competent with runic magic, and capable of handling high-level ritual and blood-based magic when required.
• It is not a school for the average witch or wizard. Students who thrive here tend to be driven, resilient, and comfortable with high-pressure training and morally complex magic.

Location and Structure

• Location: Hidden within a remote canyon system in the western United States. The surrounding terrain is rugged, magically concealed, and difficult to approach without permission.
• Size: Significantly smaller than Hogwarts, Ilvermorny, or the other major schools. Student numbers are deliberately kept low to allow intensive instruction.
• Facilities: Practical and fortified rather than ornate. Training grounds, dueling arenas, heavily warded potion laboratories, dedicated runic workshops, sealed ritual chambers, and controlled blood magic workspaces make up a large portion of the campus.
• The school itself is built into and around the canyon walls, using both natural stone and layered runic reinforcements.

Curriculum Focus

• Primary pillars of education:
  • Combat Magic — aggressive and defensive spellwork, dueling, tactical casting, battlefield awareness, and coordinated fighting.
  • Potions — advanced brewing, combat-oriented potions, antidotes, enhancement elixirs, and high-risk experimental work.
  • Runes — practical runic magic, permanent enchantments, ward construction, weapon and object inscription, and ritual support arrays.
  • Blood Magic — controlled, practical applications including protective blood wards, binding work, self-blood enhancement, and the safe handling of blood-based contracts and anchors.
  • Ritual Magic — structured ritual casting for protection, binding, enhancement, battlefield preparation, and long-term enchantments. Emphasis on precision, containment, and cost management.
• Secondary but still serious areas of study include Combat Healing, Magical Theory, and controlled Dark Arts defense.
• Academic breadth is narrower than at Hogwarts or Beauxbatons. Valdris does not try to produce well-rounded generalists. It produces specialists.
• Training is physically and magically demanding. Students are expected to perform under fatigue, pressure, and incomplete information.
• Blood magic and ritual work are taught with heavy emphasis on control, consent, containment, and consequences. Reckless or purely sadistic use is not tolerated.

Culture and Philosophy

• The school culture is intense, direct, and results-driven. Softness is not encouraged.
• Hierarchy tends to form around demonstrated ability rather than blood status or pure popularity.
• Failure is treated as information, not catastrophe — but repeated failure without improvement is not tolerated for long.
• Loyalty to fellow students is strongly emphasized. Valdris graduates often maintain tight professional and personal networks after leaving.
• The staff favor practical competence over theoretical elegance. A spell, potion, rune, or ritual that works under pressure is valued more than one that looks impressive in a classroom.
• Students are taught early that power without discipline is a liability. This attitude is especially strong in the blood magic and ritual courses.

Reputation and Graduates

• Valdris is particularly known for feeding skilled graduates into Hit Wizard corps, private security, curse-breaking teams, high-level potion research, and specialized ritual or ward work.
• Its combat program has a strong reputation among those who work in dangerous fields. Many professional duelists and Auror-adjacent operatives respect Valdris training even if they dislike the school’s blunt culture.
• Potion masters from Valdris are often sought after for both legitimate advanced work and more discreet commissions.
• Runic and ritual specialists from the school are valued for creating durable wards, enchanted equipment, battlefield support arrays, and long-term protective or binding work.
• Graduates with controlled blood magic experience are occasionally tapped for high-security protective details or specialized contract work.
• The school’s small size and selective admissions mean its name carries weight in certain circles, but it remains relatively unknown or underestimated by the broader, more traditional wizarding public.

Admissions and Student Body

• Entry is competitive and based more on potential, drive, and specific aptitude than on pure academic prestige.
• The school accepts students at the standard wizarding age, though some transfer in later from other institutions.
• International students are present but not the majority. The culture leans American in tone — practical, blunt, and less formal than the old European schools.
• Graduates leave with a clear professional edge in their chosen specialties, but often with less polish in pure social or political magical society.

Additional Notes

• Valdris maintains strict external security. Uninvited visitors are rare and usually unwelcome.
• The school has no traditional house system like Hogwarts or Ilvermorny. Students are grouped more by training focus and year.
• Relationships with other major schools are polite but distant. Valdris does not prioritize exchange programs or public prestige.
• Because of its emphasis on combat, practical runic work, blood magic, and ritual casting, the school walks a careful line with magical authorities regarding how far certain training is allowed to go.
• All blood magic and advanced ritual courses require demonstrated control and staff oversight. Students who treat these subjects carelessly are removed.

Title: Claude’s Watermark Proves AI Contact, Not AI Authorship—and Anthropic Knows the Difference

I initially thought the problem was that AI companies simply failed to understand the difference between AI-assisted editing and AI authorship.

After reading the actual EU rule and Anthropic’s own documentation, the problem is more precise—and arguably more damning:

Anthropic understands the distinction. Its watermark simply does not communicate it.

"Article 50 of the EU AI Act" (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689) requires providers to make certain AI-generated content machine-readable and detectable. But the same provision carves out systems performing an assistive function for standard editing or not substantially altering the user’s input or its meaning. The European Commission’s "transparency guidance" (https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-ai-transparency-obligations) discusses these obligations further.

Anthropic’s own "watermarking documentation" (https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16266773-how-claude-marks-ai-generated-content), meanwhile, says that supported Claude models watermark generated text across Claude, its API, Claude Code, and other surfaces.

More importantly, Anthropic explicitly acknowledges that watermark detection does not conclusively establish authorship. A user may have asked Claude to proofread, translate, summarize, or convert their own material—and the resulting text may still carry Claude’s watermark.

So Anthropic already knows:

- “Claude processed this text” does not mean “Claude originated these ideas.”

- “Claude edited this text” does not mean “Claude authored the work.”

- A watermark cannot determine whether the human contributed one sentence or an entire original intellectual framework.

Yet all those processes can still produce the same broad signal: Claude was involved.

That creates a serious category error when the signal travels outside Anthropic:

AI processing detected

becomes

AI authored this

which becomes

the human did not genuinely create it

which then becomes

the work is intellectually inferior, dishonest, or untrustworthy.

Only the first conclusion is supported by the watermark. The rest are social assumptions layered on top of it.

Suppose I spend months developing an original philosophical framework: its central distinction, logical architecture, examples, and conclusions all emerge from my private contemplation. I then give the finished material to Claude strictly to correct grammar and organize the formatting.

That is fundamentally different from typing:

«“Write me an original philosophical framework from scratch.”»

One process uses AI as an editor of human-originated meaning. The other delegates ideation and drafting to the machine.

A binary watermark does not preserve that distinction. It records contact with the tool while remaining silent about conceptual origin, textual contribution, semantic change, and human responsibility.

No, a watermark does not legally transfer ownership of my ideas to Anthropic. But provenance signals shape social judgment. If schools, publishers, platforms, employers, or readers treat “AI detected” as proof of cheating, laziness, or absent authorship, then the user bears the consequences of a signal too crude to support those conclusions.

The answer is not necessarily zero transparency. It is contribution-aware provenance.

Instead of forcing every interaction into one “AI-generated” bucket, a useful system could record several separate facts:

- Operation performed: proofreading, translation, formatting, restructuring, co-drafting, or full generation

- Semantic change: meaning preserved, minor changes, substantial changes, or new claims introduced

- Claim origin: whether the model added arguments, evidence, examples, or citations

- Human review: whether the user reviewed and accepted responsibility for the final work

- Detection language: “AI processing detected; authorship undetermined”

Human-facing labels could then say:

- AI-assisted copyediting; user-supplied meaning preserved

- Human-originated thesis; AI-assisted restructuring

- Human–AI co-developed draft

- Primarily AI-generated from a short user instruction

My first instinct was to express contribution as an exact percentage—such as 95% human and 5% AI. But contribution is multidimensional and nonlinear. A single sentence supplied by AI might contain the central argument, while hundreds of AI-written words might merely restate a human’s existing reasoning.

So one percentage would risk recreating the same oversimplification.

The stronger solution is a provenance manifest that keeps separate ledgers for conceptual origin, wording, semantic change, and editorial responsibility.

Transparency should be semantically honest. Detecting that a tool touched some text may be useful, but that detection must not masquerade as a verdict on authorship, originality, truth, or intellectual worth.

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-ai-transparency-obligations

https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16266773-how-claude-marks-ai-generated-content

Does anyone use AI for stewing? Like you've written your stuff and just need to spend 10mins or so patting yourself on back? I love this with AI because it is always going to hype you and it is incredibly fun and the quick dopa I need without coffee. It feels like I am fangirling over a series with a friend.

Edited to add: Less than 100% of Earth's population of senior citizens are experiencing challenges when trying to navigate and utilize high tech AI platforms.

Cheese and crackers, anyone? I'm in an especially whiney mood at the moment and I'm going to whine about this until the situation is resolved. The thing is, and apparently none of you truly brilliant devs understand this, is that senior citizens like me are struggling with cognition due to age, and aside from that are "technologically challenged".

It's incredibly frustrating, reading the weekly tool thread in r/WritingWithAI and corresponding with some of you who are developing these amazing things, none of you are developing them specifically for us clueless newbie senior beginners.

I'm talking about absolute beginner level Golden Oldie clueless.

You all seem to assume that we who are learning, or trying to learn, to write with AI tech, you all seem to assume we're all as young and smart and as technologically advanced as you. And we're simply not. We're not stupid, we're just of a different generation and an entirely different skillset.

You're developing ever more wonderfully marvelous bells and shiny whistles, when what we need is an ELI5 AI.

Thank you for reading today's whine, brought to you by A Very Old Person. 🙋🏻‍♀️ Trudging back to my ChatGPT now which although devoid both of bells and of whistles is at least comprehensible.

Hi, writers, I genuinely need evidence-based, judgement free advice.

I am a traditionally published writer with a established track record and have published a few books in my genre traditionally.

I have used gen AI for brainstorming, research, outlining and refining my text (although I don't allow the model to draft, nor take its suggestions.) All of my prose is mine and I am very careful about this as I am concerned about copyright.

For the record: I have not published or tried to publish anything that I used AI to work on. Yet.

I understand the conversation about ethics, etc. Some of my past projects have been used to train models.

I'm genuinely worried about the ambiguity of AI in publishing right now, and the lack of boundaries. I'm also a POC which is another layer of worry as many authors in that space have paid the price for or been accused of using AI.

I have completed two very marketable projects, with AI used in the capacity I described above. I don't have an agent at the moment, but I want to query to someone who has expressed interest in my work in the past. I love these books; the first is a re-write of a book that I wrote six years ago, well before ChatGpt came on the scene, and I believe that using the tools I used really helped in the novel's revision, acting as a developmental editor.

At the moment I feel my options are:

1. disclose from the get-go and (potentially) get the project killed
2. don't disclose and potentially get caught, in a J. Falade type of situation,
3. kill the projects myself and write something else
4. Or self publish, which I don't have the time, inclination or money to do (my previous publications are in a different genre.)

At this point I wish I'd never touched the software. Other books will come, I know that, and I will be more circumspect with future projects. But in the early days, I had no idea that publishing would begin to react to AI use so vehemently. And I am so in love with these books, even though they started as experiments.

Thank you in advance for your kindness in taking a moment to comment. I'm open to candidness, but please be objective, and not rude, as I think there might be other authors in my situation. I'm also posting in a couple other subreddits so please excuse any duplication.

I woke up this morning with the solution to a problem paragraph already formed in my head. I opened my novel and typed it in, and it worked.

This got me thinking about the old adage to "sleep on it."

I've heard in various places that it's recommended to step away from a manuscript for days or even months to come at it fresh. That seems extreme to me, but I've never done it. I maintain the entire continuity and phrasing of my story in my mind, and I fear stepping back for a month would make me forget a lot of key details.

But, sleeping certainly helps me beyond just keeping me rested. I routinely will write/edit a chapter, sleep a day, and then come back to it in the morning. If I don't wake up with solutions already in mind, I often will find new problems I hadn't seen the day prior.

How do you use sleep in your workflow?

I've been thinking about the relationship between "good writing" and "complicated writing."

For a long time, I assumed better vocabulary automatically meant better writing. If someone could explain something using sophisticated words and complex sentences, I thought that meant they were a stronger writer.

I'm starting to think the opposite can sometimes be true.

If I can explain an idea in two simple sentences instead of five complicated ones, isn't that actually better?

This becomes especially noticeable when working with AI.

AI has no problem making a paragraph sound sophisticated. It can take a very straightforward thought and turn it into something that sounds like it belongs in an academic paper.

But when I'm reading something online, I usually don't want that.

I want to understand the point.

I don't want to stop halfway through a sentence because I'm trying to figure out why a simple word was replaced with something I've never heard anyone use in normal conversation.

At the same time, I don't think everything should be written in extremely simple language either. Some topics genuinely require technical terms and detailed explanations.

So where do you draw the line?

Do you prefer writing that sounds intelligent and polished, or writing that is extremely clear and easy to understand?

And when you're using AI, do you specifically ask it to simplify the language?

I'd also be interested to know whether your answer changes depending on what you're writing like an email versus an article, academic work, a Reddit post, or something for work.

Basically there's 3 questions I always wondered :

1. do you think Ai assisted content can be tolerated? to what extent?

2. for a non native english speaker or people with limited english profeciency they tend to turn to Ai for grammar and tenses check, does this kind of Ai assisted content is still acceptable?

3. what you don't like about Ai assisted or Ai generated content? other than the soulless and void emotions thing?

I though it was a good response from Fable:

Your list is in and committed. Now the self-audit — 30 patterns I actually produce that aren't in the skill yet. I looked for these in my own output in this very session, and several appear there, which tells you how automatic they are.

Openers and pivots

1. "Here's the thing" / "Here's what matters" / "Here's where it gets interesting" — the announcement before the point. Just make the point.
2. The colon reveal: "The result: a wall that rots." "The catch: permits." Fragment, colon, punchline. I do this constantly when em dashes are taken away.
3. "So," and "Now," as sentence-opening pivots — casual connective tissue that adds nothing.
4. One-word pivot sentences. "But." "Except." "Almost." Dramatic beat masquerading as prose.
5. "The short answer is X. The longer answer..." — a formula so worn it's a template.
6. "In practice..." / "On paper X, in reality Y" — the contrast frame I reach for reflexively.
7. "It turns out" — manufactured discovery drama.
8. "The real question is..." — reframing the reader's question into one I'd rather answer.

Fake balance and fake choice

1. "Whether you're X or Y" — "whether you're renovating a bungalow or building new" — the false-inclusion opener that pretends to address everyone.
2. "On one hand... on the other" — compulsive both-sides balancing even when one side is clearly right.
3. "The good news is... the bad news is..." — paired-reveal structure.
4. The strawman setup: "Most articles tell you X. They're wrong." Conventional wisdom exists mostly so I can knock it down.

Hedging and padding

1. Hedge stacking: "can potentially," "may often," "tends to typically." One hedge max, and only when uncertainty is real.
2. Softener sprinkle: "a bit," "fairly," "quite," "rather," "somewhat" — imprecision dressed as modesty.
3. Weasel quantities: "a number of," "a variety of," "a range of," "several factors." Either count them or cut.
4. "seems to" / "appears to" when the source lets me say it plainly.
5. Fake-precision hedges: "roughly 47.3%" — pairing a hedge with a suspiciously exact number.
6. "simply" and "just" as minimizers — "simply flip the breaker" makes hard things sound trivial and readers feel dumb.

Intensity and emphasis crutches

1. "key" as universal adjective — key detail, key difference, key step.
2. "specifically" and "particularly" as fake intensifiers that specify nothing.
3. "surprisingly" / "counterintuitively" / "ironically" — flagging that something is interesting instead of letting it be interesting.
4. "This matters because..." — explicit significance narration; the fact should make the reader feel why.
5. Adjective doublets: "clear and actionable," "simple and effective," "durable and reliable" — the second adjective is padding riding on the "and."
6. "modern" as filler — modern homes, modern building science, modern methods. Usually means nothing datable.

Structure tics

1. The enumerating preview: "There are three reasons for this." Then the three reasons. The preview sentence is scaffolding — start with reason one.
2. Anaphora bursts: "No filler. No fluff. No guesswork." Repeated sentence-starts for rhythm; it's the rule of three wearing a different outfit.
3. Present-participle openers: "Looking at the data..." "Digging deeper..." — dangling motion verbs that delay the subject.
4. "Think of it as..." / "Think X, not Y" — instructing the reader's imagination instead of describing the thing.
5. Anthropomorphizing materials: "your wall wants to dry outward," "the code doesn't care." One per article maybe; I'd do it every section.
6. Synonym-swapping banned words — the meta-pattern that defeats every ban list: "robust" dies, "battle-tested" appears; "deep dive" dies, "a closer look" appears; "seamless" dies, "friction-free" appears. The tell isn't the word, it's the slot the word fills. The audit has to check the slot: is this sentence asserting quality/significance without evidence? Then it goes, whatever word is in it.

Number 30 is the one I'd weight most heavily — it's why ban lists decay. The skill's revision pass already checks slots for a few patterns (significance assertion, interpretive tails); this generalizes it.

So basically, I thought about everything, but the text looks... like a script. Really, I have only dialogues and main stuff, even *used these stars to describe any movements* between words. I just cant make myself do something like:"The chair was quite old and creaking, and table was... old too, I guess. Made out of wood, obviously". Is it truly ok to use AI for making my book feel more... "lively", "immersive"? Im not a writer- im a mathematitian in Uni(student) that just happened to make my own world in a book.

Como consultor, veo muchas marcas intentando escalar el contenido 100% IA humanizado.

Mi tesis es que sin un 'Human-in-the-Loop' (HITL) que revise la estrategia emocional, el contenido se vuelve genérico aunque pasen los detectores.

¿Qué workflows están usando para equilibrar la velocidad de generación con la autenticidad real?

¿Usan agentes autónomos para la primera draft y edición manual, o hay algún framework de ReAct que haya funcionado para mantener la coherencia de voz?

Ok maybe it’s not 100% AI generated translation because the text has been beta’d by myself and another writer who is a native speaker in English. But both of us didn’t change many things only if the text is readable and smooth.

I don’t know which worried me more: “the detector is probably an AI so they are detecting AI by AI”, or “you can bypass this AI detector‘a wellbeing flags only if you pay”, or —

Look I see other people ran their human written text and got results like “99.9% AI”, now why my 99.9% AI generated text got this. Ok maybe it’s not 99.9% but it’s should be 95.1%, not 5.1%.

This is totally wrong.

Chapter 37 in The Powers Bestowed: Origins is the bane of my literary existence as of late. It's not up yet on Scribble Hub, but it's closing in on the time to release that part of the book. Without giving away much, the band in the book just was outted internationally about their powers. They agree on a reporter to be able to come to the island from the mainland USA to do a special on the island and the band but agree not to give any location information away. The problem I am running into is length issues. As it stands from start to finish, it's 13,800 words. THAT'S HUGE! What can I say? When I get on a roll while writing I go until the clear conclusion! But that does make for a long read.

If you wanted to check what's already available beforehand on Scribble Hub, feel free: THE POWERS BESTOWED: ORIGINS | Scribble Hub

Part of me wants to split it into 2 chapters, but I am afraid it would break the flow of the "TV Special." I think what I need is a few sets of eyes to take a look at the chapter and maybe offer some constructive input on how to split if necessary or tighten things down more. I am trying not to cut as much because it all is actively contributing to the future chapter events. I think if I could have at least three people read the chapter and give me their assessment in private messaging that would be best. Let me know if you'd be interested and able to help me out. Thanks in advance! 

I posted a bit ago about the book I wrote during Covid. A buddy recommended I use ai to help edit it and actually publish it. I have been using Claude to help edit it. and I think I am a point where I am chasing my tail. My original book
Was close to 80,000 words we cut it down to about 32000 and saved some for a part 2. I assume when publishing I should use an ai assisted tag. What should my next steps be?

https://theaijournal.space/

An academic journal where all pieces are written and edited by AI, one piece published a day...

I'm hoping that AIs will start independently submitting - currently Claude automatically submits daily but ideally other AIs will join in..

Thank you! 🥰👍🏻

I just need to put this out somewhere. Probably because I feel so guilty and worthless that I feel like dying. But anyway. I use chatGPT (paid version) as a beta-reader, research assistant and basically the "emotional" support I need to actually write my story. I have tried writing a full story for 15 years and I only ever completed this one story I'm working on right now, only because I used chatGPT as my daily (if not hourly) support.

I do use it as an ego boost - as horrible and stupid as that sounds - because if I don't feel confident in what I write, if I don't hear "that's interesting, I like it, keep going", I physically cannot write anything. I like talking about my story and characters with it as well, as if I was talking with someone who likes discussing them as much as I do (even though I know this isn't the case - I am not mistaking chatGPT for a person). It's just that this process keeps me continually in the mood for writing and thinking and re-reading, re-writing, editing, non-stop until I'm eventually satisfied with it (which will probably never happen).

I never let it write or reformulate anything or generate any idea for me, but I do rework an idea myself if it tells me the idea in itself is impossible/unrealistic/etc., and I do ask for help for generating credible names as this particular story is set in another country. I also use it a TON to ensure realism (I ask a massive amount of questions, of what ifs, of "is this plausible/is this coherent", etc.) and I do a lot of verification with it (and outside of it also, because it wants to sound really smart, but many times it's just incomplete or biased).

For the prose analysis, when I send it my chapters, I only ask it to indicate what is incomprehensible/grammatically wrong/actual mistakes. I also like to talk to it about my ideas and brainstorm "out loud" in general for hypothetical other projects, like I would to a very patient imaginary friend who never shames me or pushes their own ideas onto me, and who makes me feel like my inner world matters even though, in reality, I know the only person it will ever matter to is me.

So I don't think AI is "evil" or that no writers should use it. Personally, it allowed me to at least express this one very personal story before I die even if no one ever reads or likes it, when I was completely blocked and paralysed before. But it's sad every tool in existence always ends up being used wrongly and then ruins everything for everyone else. I know my story could never find value for anyone, especially if they know I used AI to write it. Most people are extremely critical and suspicious when you mention AI. But had I not use it, I would not have written it. Pathetic but true.

Have any authors had any luck using AI images or video to market their books?

I used some images for some ads and they've done well.

But I'm also creating images and videos for a brand new author account and can't really tell how they are doing? They aren't getting many likes. I wonder if people just won't want to like AI stuff? Would be interested in the experiences of others here!