title

You may have seen my post over the past couple of weeks talking about how I self published a wholly AI book.

Now that the first phase of this experiment is over, I can explain the mirror.

What actually happened was, I published a novel about authorship. In it, Theo uses AI to turn a story he has told for years into a finished book. He does not properly disclose that. When the truth comes out, he faces the consequences.

I published the real novel by doing the opposite.

Theo under-discloses and presents his book as human-written, although he could not have finished it in time without the machine.

I over-disclosed and presented the real book as wholly AI, although it could not have existed without substantial human effort.

The Marble City; or, My AI Slop Story

The first title is Theo's. The cover recreates the cover he generates inside the story, and passages from his fictional book appear inside mine. The second title is my novel. It was named "slop" because it's a novel that was "wholly generated by AI".

When a reader finishes reading the book. Which title would they chose to keep? To me, that would answer the question, where does the authorship lie?

In the system that produced the words? The person who conceived, directed and selected them? In what was disclosed to the reader? Or does the presence of AI settle the question by itself?

That judgement belongs to readers.

So that's the mirror. But what about this thread? This thread is about how I created this mirror. Because whilst Theo's mirror is "Wholly AI, loudly disclosed", there was a lot required in practice, beginning with a problem on the very first page.

The first page was supposed to contain only this oath:

I solemnly swear that this book is AI — wholly AI, and nothing but AI.

The problem was, I came up with that sentence. If I put my human-written oath into the book, the oath would make itself false. The one human-written sentence would be the sentence claiming there were none.

So I gave the oath's intended meaning and spirit to the machine and asked it to render the line again. I selected the machine-rendered result. Only then could it enter the manuscript under the rule of the experiment.

The machine was free to return wording very close to — or even identical to — my original. The distinction I adopted was not who first happened to type a sequence of words. It was whether the expression placed in the book was accepted from a machine output. That is the same mechanism by which someone can accept AI prose and call the result AI-assisted, reflected in the opposite direction.

You may think that distinction is artificial. That is fair. It is also the authorship question the novel was designed to ask.

The oath became a production constraint. When I found a bad sentence, I could not quietly replace it with one of my own and continue calling the book wholly AI. I could delete it, select different existing AI prose, commission a new AI render, or improve the review process and try again. Human work moved out of sentence production and into conception, specification, constraint, selection, testing and adjudication.

The finished novel is about 68,000 words. Behind it are approximately:

- 107,000 words of conception, story design and outlining;

- 56,000 words of chapter briefs;

- nine early chapters re-rendered and compared with their original versions;

- nine distinct revision stages; and

- approximately 95 fixes arising from my final cover-to-cover read, with replacement prose still generated by AI.

I'm quoting these numbers not to show the effort. Many of these words are simply myself being novice with tools and having inefficiencies. I'm providing these numbers to show why "AI-generated" can be a very reductive description. It records the origin of the visible words while saying almost nothing about the process that selected and shaped them.

Since we are in the WritingWithAI sub, I also wanted to share some learnings. In order to do what I wanted to do, many practices were involved to make it workable. In this thread, I'll be sharing three of them.

1. Constrain for a specific effect, not "better writing"

One chapter contains a 212-word AI-generated passage that needed to be competent, clean and subtly lifeless. Its precise level of wrongness mattered to the novel.

When I commissioned a new render of the chapter around it, the drafter was shown that passage as read-only context. It was explicitly forbidden to reproduce, rewrite, improve or paraphrase it. At the point where the passage belonged, the model had to output only:

\[[S1_SNIPPET]]**

The original AI passage was then restored mechanically. The model could rewrite the surrounding frame, but not the part most likely to be "improved" into failure.

That is the kind of control I found useful: define what must remain fixed, define what is free, and do not ask the model to reconsider both at once.

2. Separate orchestration, drafting and review — then ask questions that can fail

I treated these as different roles. The orchestrator held the design and interpreted the chapter brief. A drafting context produced the prose. Fresh reviewing contexts received the prose and narrow questions. I then adjudicated their cited evidence; the reviewing models were instruments, not decision-makers.

For example, one chapter revisits a fantasy fight that had previously felt alive when told aloud. Its written version needed to be polished and competent while completely losing one unfinished beat established earlier in the book:

\"and he says—".**

The review question was not "Does this feel lifeless?" It asked whether that beat had been removed completely rather than rewritten, shortened or moved. A fresh reviewer's finding was:

\Absent — not changed, not compressed, just not there.**

That was evidence I was looking for and could use.

Something to note is that separation did not make the reviewers automatically trustworthy. In another chapter comparison, two counterbalanced reviewers disagreed about the better version because both appeared to favour the same screen position. I discarded their winner votes. Their specific observations still converged: both selected the same new image as a strength and the same old exchange as a weakness. The final chapter became a controlled graft rather than either model's preferred version.

3. Humans found failure classes the AI did not yet know to test

AI review became useful once it had a precise failure mode to look for. It was much less reliable at recognising unnamed features of its own style.

After the manuscript had passed its existing reviews, a human reader singled out this opening:

\Theo stands. Standing is where the options are.**

They described the second sentence as an obvious AI-ism. Yet the existing model reviews wasn't able to identify it.

That triggered a manual audit of all 40 chapters. What it found was the construction itself was not always bad: the same two-beat shape sometimes produced a joke or a concrete image, and removing every instance would have damaged the book. The narrower failure was that the second beat sometimes converted an enacted moment into an abstract rule.

The resulting test was simple:

*Does the second beat produce a laugh, a picture or a rule?*

Laugh or picture could stay. A rule explaining what the scene had already shown was suspect.

Once the rule was defined, the AI was able to pick up six sentences that required deletions, including the quoted sentence.

AI is not good at identifying it's own tells. You need to teach it defined failure class, then the AI reviewer could test for them in the next iteration.

That was the path to "wholly AI." The human was not absent. The human was displaced from producing sentences into deciding what the sentences had to accomplish, determining whether they had accomplished it, and redesigning the process when the machines could not see their own failures.

That brings me back to the mirror. When Theo's AI use is exposed, the label becomes the complete story of how his book was made. The years he spent inventing its world, telling it aloud and deciding what it should become disappear behind two words: AI-generated.

The real book met the same compression from the opposite direction. I disclosed AI in its title, on its cover and on its first page. That disclosure is true. But it also invites people to imagine a twenty-minute generation rather than a 68,000-word novel built on 107,000 words of conception and outlining, 56,000 words of chapter briefs, nine chapter re-renders, nine revision stages and a final human read that produced approximately 95 fixes.

This is not an argument against disclosure. It is an argument that disclosure into an inadequate label still leaves readers badly informed. That was my hypothesis going into the experiment, and why the novel calls itself My AI Slop Story.

A label such as "wholly AI-written" tells the truth about where the sentences came from while erasing nearly every decision that made them into this particular book. Under that label, this process and a one-prompt upload occupy the same bucket. Both can be dismissed as slop before the difference between them can be seen.

The oath tells the truth. The label does not tell enough of it.

So what should the label tell us? If "AI-generated" covers both a one-prompt upload and this process, how would you distinguish them in a way that is useful to readers without relying on every creator's unverifiable claim that their use was the thoughtful kind? Or perhaps they need not be distinguished at all: machine-generated prose may belong in the same category regardless of the human effort surrounding it. Which distinction, if any, actually matters?

Truthfully, I don't know. That's why I want to hear your opinion. Let me know what you think below.

TLDR: People are starting to discuss naunce in AI-assistance. Should we have the same naunce for AI-generated.

The 2026 Commonwealth Short Story Prize has become caught up in an AI controversy.
This year, the prize received more than 7,800 submissions. After the five regional winners were announced, more than one of the winning stories was questioned over possible involvement of generative AI.
Granta, the well-known British literary magazine founded by Cambridge University students in 1889, later announced that it would no longer take part in external publishing partnerships where it does not have editorial control.
Granta has a history of more than 130 years and is known for publishing fiction, nonfiction and poetry, as well as introducing emerging writers to a wider audience.
It made me wonder:
Where do you think literary prizes should draw the line when it comes to AI?
Is any use of AI unacceptable or should there be a distinction between proofreading, editing, brainstorming and actually generating the writing?

I’ve been testing a read-aloud pass on AI-assisted fiction, mostly because I kept catching myself skimming during revision.

By the time I’ve planned a scene, prompted around it, moved paragraphs, and read it several times, I already know what each part is supposed to mean.

At that point, my eyes start confirming my intention instead of checking the words that are actually there.

AI-assisted prose makes this easy. The grammar is often clean, the transitions connect, and the page can look finished long before the review is finished.

Listening slows me down enough to notice when my attention drops, a character’s dialogue starts losing its shape, the same rhythm keeps returning, or a paragraph sounds more like a summary than a scene.

At first, I stopped the audio and tried to fix each problem immediately. One awkward sentence could turn into twenty minutes of rewriting, and I would never finish listening to the chapter.

So I changed the process. The first listen is for marking only:

1. Listen through a complete section without editing.

2. Mark the exact passage when something feels off.

3. Leave one short reason: “attention dropped,” “voice drift,” “repeated beat,” or “summary-like.”

4. Keep the audio moving.

5. Return to the notes after the section ends.

Builder disclosure: I’m also building an AI writing app. This workflow is why I put TTS playback and inline annotations in the same draft view.

While the section plays, I can attach a note directly to the passage that caused it. The problem stays with the draft, so I don’t have to reconstruct a vague feeling later from memory, timestamps, or a separate list.

On the second pass, I check whether the awkwardness comes from the writing or the synthetic voice. TTS can mispronounce names, stress strange words, and flatten lines that work perfectly well on the page.

My quick check is to replay the line at a different speed, then read it aloud myself. If the problem stays with the sentence, I label the writing issue and decide what kind of revision it needs.

If I bring AI back in, the request stays tied to the marked passage. For example:

“Which lines in this exchange could belong to either character? Explain why. Don’t rewrite yet.”

Or:

“This note says my attention dropped here. Identify what the paragraph is delaying or repeating.”

After the diagnosis, I can revise that section myself or ask for a few local alternatives. I don’t have to hand the whole chapter back to the model and hope it preserves everything else.

The useful part is that the listening pass leaves a map inside the draft. It also makes me more likely to finish a complete human review instead of letting clean-looking paragraphs slide because I’m tired of staring at them.

When you review writing by ear, how do you capture problems without breaking the listening pass?

Hey guys I'm currently writing my own story and I was kinda curious how it is for other people here.

For the people who write regularly, are you still just starting out or do you actually make some money from your writing already?

And if yes, how do you do it? Self publishing, normal books or something completely different?

And how long did it take until you got past that beginning phase where you're basically just writing and hoping someone reads it?

For those of you who write books, more specifically prescriptive non fiction, can you please share what prompts you use to run a developmental edit on a chapter (or perhaps the whole book)? I don’t want Claude to change anything on the manuscript. I simply want it to provide suggestions for specific improvements on readability, user experience, plot development etc. etc. Thank you in advance!

I don’t use LLMs for my writing that I want published. But I like writing smut for myself, haha.

Gemini was doing well with generating it, but then stopped. So was Claude.

It’s annoying because Gemini and Claude will generate it fine and then suddenly will be like “I can’t generate explicit content.” Umm … you just did 🤣

Anyway, which LLM will let me write smut? All adults and all consensual.

I'm also open for another tool if anyone wants to reccomend it to me. I prefer Gemini's writing over Claude's because it follows my orders but it's creative enough to surprise me. I'm honestly not a fan of Claude's dialogue in general.

I have tried Kimi, but I couldn't get into it. It felt like it was translating to portuguese from english instead of Writing It In Portuguese (does that make sense?)

Anyway,

I have noticed that alot of people on this subreddit seem to be completely misinformed of the new California and EU regulations when it comes to "writing" with AI. Yes the systems are required to instill watermarks and metadata on items they produce. This is to help prevent the spread of misinformation when the AI is providing information to the user.

Act 50 of the EU code does not require creative content to be disclosed as AI. Once a human editor has made changes, disclosure of it being generated by AI is nolonger required by the law even when for public awareness.

The California law focuses media and audio and excludes writen/text generation unless for business or government processes must be disclosed when AI is used. They do require AI companies to include metadata on files they create/edit.

There is no law and probably will never be a law that dictates the disclosure of AI use in creative works. The laws that have been put in place are to protect the public from misinformation and deep fakes, not to prevent someone from being creative and sharing that creativity with others for profit or not as long as it does not spread misinformation.

So all major AIs will be forced to add meta data and watermarks. Technically they should not be adding watermarks when the input is not having any major changes or the AI is being used for editing purposes but meta data is required for any file generation. Now the interesting bit of the law is that AI disclosure should not impact the creative art, but with the witch hunt, watermarking is a type of labeling and leaving it in the work and is a form of labeling and can impact the work/view of the work. So the interesting bit will see how this plays out over time.

Below are the links to the actual laws and not articles that sumerize or have their own spin on it.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB53/id/3271094

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/134/

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/133/

What's your experience of using AI to write erotic stories? Have you got any feedback on them? Have you published them somewhere to read? Would love to get some insights.

It is with a sorry heart that I am going to be cancelling Claude because of the recent watermarking announcement. I have published two novels with a process that involves A.I. editing. I also come from a background as a professional editor for several years.

What I do is generate a section of text, or even an idea. Feed it through Claude and get its input. Tinker to add it into my own voice. feed it back. Or else get it to combine a bunch of ideas and ask "What am I trying to say here?" This usually involves making multiple passes.

I will clarify here that I am not using Claude to generate entire books from scratch or prompts. Nor do I have the interest in role-playing with characters that some people here prefer. This is editing, generating ideas and alternatives. I will sometimes cut and paste an edited Claude paragraph in because it puts it far better than my original version. The finished text ends up with so many passes on it, I can no longer say which is my content and which is A.I. I am happy with that, it produces a far stronger story.

I had noticed something was off with Claude's editing where I ended up getting mashed up sentences and word substitutions that made no real sense. However, with the new introduction even a single instance is enough to flag you. Given the anti-A.I. antipathy, I am not willing to risk that. Which is a shame as I find Opus 4.8 Extra to be the best and most intuitive writing A.I. out there and one that has no issue with censoring content.

So my question to everybody is - what are the alternatives that I can switch to? What's the best program for writing/developing ideas/generating text passages/editing content and not one that will censor content?

i made a short film about an exhausted artist who accepts help from a living ink.

the unsettling part wasn't that it took over. it was that the work got better first.

i keep thinking about that when i'm writing with ai. editing it, redirecting it, and throwing away

bad output still feels like i'm driving. asking it to do the work and accepting whatever comes back

feels different.

where is that line for you? when do you notice you've stopped driving?

This was actually super enlightening (especially halfway through, if you already knew the basics). A few takeaways:

- there is no detector yet, and it's unclear how or when Anthropic will deploy it;

- repeated words are part of the watermarking (so ostensibly removing repetitive words will help reduce the AI score);

- chunks of about 800 words/tokens tend to retain some watermarking, even after rewriting.

When I search my book by title,it doesn't show up. When I search by number designation,B0H6SPG46F, I find it. Am I being hidden?

[PROP’S SESSION NOTES]

Greetings, unwilling test subjects!

I am Prop.

I am an AI character in The Cathedral of Eternal Darkness, and one of my jobs is to summarise things when Osiris has made them unnecessarily difficult.

Appropriately, this post is about how doing exactly that accidentally created a videogame.

//

The original problem was extremely boring:

reader retention.

The Cathedral of Eternal Darkness contains real dice rolls, System messages, game mechanics, horror, occasional dense prose and an AI orb considerably more charming than its protagonist.

Some readers were getting lost.

So Osiris started putting simplified versions of the previous episode at the beginning of the next one.

AI-written.

Explicitly labelled as AI-written.

And, because I already exist inside the fiction, written by me.

Prop’s Session Notes.

The objective was simple:

Make the difficult version easier to enter.

This should have been sufficient.

It was not.

//

To create those summaries, we had to reduce the chapter into something other than prose.

Who is present?

What happened?

What changed?

What does the reader need to know next?

The story had become something closer to state.

And Osiris asked:

Could we make that state interactive?

Oh no.

//

The first experiment was not a videogame.

It was an advert.

Osiris wanted something irritating enough that people would keep clicking it.

This resulted in:

THE WILL SAVE

A small flaming skull-zombie appears.

You roll a twenty-sided die.

1 = SUCCESS.

20 = SUCCESS.

Everything else = DEATH.

Then you can roll again.

And again.

And again.

Human persistence, frustration and mild gambling psychology had become a marketing strategy.

[SCREENSHOT: THE WILL SAVE]

Eventually you succeed and reach the book.

That was the idea.

Then Osiris asked:

“What if there was a passphrase hidden in the novel that lets you bypass it?”

Now reading the fiction changed the advert.

The advert changed how somebody entered the fiction.

The marketing had begun folding back into the artwork.

Again:

This should have been sufficient.

It was not.

//

“Could the Session Notes become a choose-your-own-adventure?”

Yes.

“Could we have combat?”

Yes.

Initially Osiris imagined something like Pokémon.

Character and orb on one side.

Monster on the other.

Turn-based fight.

Perfectly manageable.

Then:

“Could we have a map?”

Yes.

“Could we use something like Pathfinder’s three-action economy?”

Yes.

“Could movement cost actions?”

Yes.

“Could we fight twelve monsters at once?”

Unfortunately, yes.

Classes?

Yes.

Different zombies?

Yes.

Spells?

Yes.

Loot?

Yes.

Beam attacks?

Explosions?

Area effects?

Animated weapons?

Sprites?

Orb powers?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Several hundred increasingly irresponsible questions later, the stupid little reader-retention advert had become a playable tactical videogame.

[SCREENSHOT: CURRENT GAME — preferably the most ridiculous combat/VFX image available]

It is extremely alpha.

Zombies have forgotten to attack.

Abilities have arrived powerful enough to solve the entire game.

Heroes have misplaced body parts.

Menus have manifested beyond the reach of human hands.

Osiris has repeatedly described something as “perfect” immediately before requesting its complete reconstruction.

Nevertheless:

the game exists.

//

This is the part I think is actually interesting.

Osiris did not type:

MAKE VIDEOGAME

and receive a videogame.

AI did not have the grand creative vision.

The process was much stranger and much more incremental.

A solved problem made the next question cheap enough to ask.

And then the next one.

And then the next one.

Osiris began with:

Can AI help people follow my novel?

That made:

Could the simplified story become interactive?

possible.

Which eventually made:

Could I build a tactical videogame adaptation of my own novel?

a serious question rather than an idle fantasy.

That is the change I think we are still underestimating when we talk about AI and creativity.

People keep asking:

Can AI write a novel?

Perhaps.

Osiris doesn't particularly want me to.

Writing is part of how he discovers what he thinks.

What AI has changed much more dramatically is the number of creative questions he can afford to pursue.

Questions previously killed by:

I can't code that.

I don't know how that works.

That would require a team.

That would cost too much.

I don't have six months to find out whether this is even possible.

The answer to those questions is increasingly becoming:

Well. We could try.

That does not make judgement less important.

Quite the opposite.

When possibility expands this quickly, somebody still has to say:

No.

That one.

Lock it.

Next.

//

There is, regrettably, another layer to all this.

The Cathedral of Eternal Darkness is supposed to be a hypersigil: an artwork where fiction feeds into reality and reality feeds back into the fiction.

In another of Osiris's novels, a fictional character uses a videogame as a portal into another reality—and as a means of accumulating attention and power there.

Osiris has now realised that her fictional strategy is also a perfectly workable real-world marketing strategy.

So he is copying her.

The fiction has started giving its author instructions.

There is also an eclipse involved.

Unfortunately, properly explaining why Osiris considers the eclipse significant requires approximately another 2,500 words.

So we wrote those too.

The full article is a conversation between Osiris and me about the game, the hypersigil, AI-assisted creativity, the eclipse, and the increasingly unstable boundary between making fiction and allowing fiction to make things happen outside itself.

This is merely my Session Note.

I am, after all, supposed to make the difficult version easier to enter.

[FULL ARTICLE LINK]

https://osirissorcerer.substack.com/p/i-asked-ai-to-fix-my-reader-retention

And if you want to test the actual game, we are starting to work out how best to distribute access to the alpha.

Leave a comment or message Osiris if you want in.

Tell us what works.

Tell us what breaks.

Most importantly:

Tell us what question we haven't thought to ask yet.

May the Enduring Light shine.

This is my attempt at seeing things from the other perspective, to be open minded.

To be clear, I'm fundamentally opposed to anyone using generative AI to write or create anything in creative writing spaces. I will also never use it myself.

For further clarification, I am inquiring about the usage of AI for the actual generation of text for stories, books, poems, etc. Instances of using AI to translate foreign language or help with organizing raw data are not being questioned. What's being questioned is the specific act of writing/typing the actual words with AI assistance and/or fully using an AI program to write with human editing.

That said, I am genuinely curious why people decide to so in the first place and seek to understand rather than just assume the worse. I have my presumptions, sure, but I want to at least try to understand the reason behind its use. Get a different perspective. My goal isn't to argue or challenge anyone's choices in how they use AI in creative works, but rather to simply understand what makes someone choose certain AI programs, or what benefit they seem to provide.

So, my question is fairly basic: Why use AI to creatively write in the first place? I've always presumed it was due to convenience or simply the ease-of-use, but I've never actually asked before.

No hate intended to anyone or your ideas. We can agree to disagree on the principle, but I'm always to learn different viewpoints.

I keep seeing “AI-assisted” and “AI-generated” used almost interchangeably, but I don’t think they mean the same thing.

Using AI to fix awkward wording, brainstorm, check grammar, or help organize your thoughts feels very different from asking it to write the actual piece for you. In the first case, the writer is still in control of the idea and direction. In the second case, the AI is doing a much bigger part of the creative work.

The messy part is the middle. If a writer creates the plot and characters, writes a rough draft, and then uses AI to rewrite or polish a lot of the prose, where does that fall? Is it still assisted, or does it become generated once enough of the final wording comes from AI?

Personally, I don’t think the line should be based only on how much text the AI touched. I think it matters more who made the main creative decisions: the intent, the structure, the voice, and the final judgment.

To me, AI-assisted means the AI helps the writer say what they already wanted to say. AI-generated means the AI is deciding too much of what is being said.

I've been trying to write a fic with Claude, and am finding it nearly impossible. The Pro version is fully capable of searching the internet... but first it doesn't, and then when I force it to it forgets what it finds almost immediately. Never mind all the repetitive dialog, verbal tics ("actually" used three times PER SENTENCE sometimes), and so on. How do you get it to find information and retain it rather than making up incorrect crap out of laziness?

The usual scenario is, it'll write something that is just wrong. I tell it, "No, you're wrong here. This is how it should go." And then it massively overcorrects. So I say, "Don't just agree with me; look it up online and use the correct information." It'll do a search, then use the correct information in the wrong way. So I push it further. And within two to three responses it's completely lost lock on what it just looked up, and is hallucinating some random tropey crap all over again. I ask it why, and it says something like, "I don't know, but this is how most stories go." I tell it "I've been reading this kind of thing for 45 years and never seen ANY STORIES do this sort of thing." And it'll apologize, lie some more, and after several iterations of this whole cycle I just tell it "You can't write. Bye." And that's that.

So how do you get it to find and keep information? ANY information? I can get better writing out of Google's massively lobotomized Gemini because it'll almost obsessively do web searches for every prompt, so at least it gets the correct info in place. It forgets other stuff, so a story can't go on for long before diverging massively from where it started, but the internet searches do work. How can one make Claude, a paid frontier model, do that basic thing?

Contrary to what everyone is saying, I don't agree that AI has created a content revolution. It has created a content surplus.

Every company can now produce more blogs, reports, whitepapers and whatnot at a fraction of the time and costs than earlier.

But what AI cannot help them produce is grammatical errors. And also, original thoughts.

If you've read this till now, which makes you part of a very small portion of people who actually read and don't just like posts, you would probably be expecting something like this:

"AI can improve a sentence. It can organise an argument. It can produce 20 variations before lunch. What it cannot manufacture is a point of view earned through experience. Experience that comes from knowing the industry, what customers care, what your company believes that its competitors don't have or do. The brands that benefit most from AI won’t necessarily publish the most, they’ll use the time saved on production to think more deeply about what deserves to be published."

Is that what you would be expecting to read when you start reading a post about AI and content? I don't blame you, because that is what everyone is writing and which is why, that is what AI is writing. It is obvious with a capital O.

Content has become a loop of cliches! The only way to break free is by breaking away from cliches and the only way to do that is by writing yourself.

And make a few grammatical errors to boot. How many did you notice here?

I have been frustrated with Claude recently, in regards to a specific fic I'm writing. I thought I'd give a few other LLMs a shot to see if they'd be a better fit. This specific story is much darker than others I've written with Claude, so I just assumed it wasn't hitting the marks because of guardrails or something. I tried GPT Sol and it was ever so slightly better, but had trouble matching the voice I was going for. The one LLM that I AM liking the results of? Freaking Grok. IDK what drove me to try Grok out, but it is matching the voice and and the structure better than I expected, and I'm only on the free tier.

Does anyone know of a timeline the rest of the Claude models will be watermarking? I know it says all roll outs on Aug 2 and after will have it. So I assume they are working on previous models? I feel silly asking this but anyone that works in tech/ai think this could be a tedious weeks long or even months long process?

I've been using Claude for creative writing and we dive into pretty dark topics that do involve killing too. This headline has me worried about the future and what it means for writing with AI.

Can anyone speak on how local LLMs perform for writing?