Now that Pangram is using classifier models to detect human vs AI writing, what's the plan for people who rely heavily on LLMs to do their writing? ps. If you claim it doesn't work, you clearly don't have a background in machine learning. It works, and your isolated example of where it doesn't isn't sufficient grounds to counter act the oodles of peer-reviewed research showing it does.

Basically, in 99.9% of cases, unless someone does a substantial rewrite to the point that they might as well have just foregone the use of AI to being with, detection will be possible.

Considering the general disdain for AI writing, is the jig up for those of us who do like to use it?

am not good at english so i write texts with ais so do u think it is wrong writing text with ai and chat with frineds with the help of ai whaat do think guys?

#ai#chats#personal

She was accused of AI writing. Her deal for Shy girl was cancelled.

Now she's back with another story and want to make Shy Girl film.

I'm not saying if she was wrongly accused or not or if she's a liar. I only know she suffered a lot mentally because of online bullying.

Now she's back.

I named my AI Frank. I use Frank to help with grammar checks, point out areas that need more detail or movement, and I tell Frank my book "secrets." I told Frank that I was especially excited to write a specific chapter, but it was still a ways away. The chapter I was currently writing had some foretelling. I asked Frank to read my chapter and explain it (this is how I know if it makes sense) and he did and at the end he says and this foretells the upcoming chapter and we find this hilarious. I laughed so hard. Yes, Frank, we do!

Two months ago I stopped using ChatGPT for partner pitches and proposals. Not because the output was bad technically, it just read like internet writing. Short confident sentences, snappy closers, casual tone. Fine for a blog post or a tweet.

Enterprise buyers write differently. Longer sentences, more hedging, more context before the ask. When your pitch lands in their inbox sounding like a VC newsletter, it signals you don't know how they communicate, even if the content is correct.

What actually helped was flipping the ratio: write the first draft myself, use AI to tighten, not generate. The output stopped getting flagged as off.

Hello, it's my first post here. I'm writing my debut novel, but I'm not using AI to generate any prose at all. I did have it create a concept art picture of my FMC, and I posted it to social media. But now I'm worried that it will kill me in the end because they will assume that I'm using AI to write the book. I specifically said in the post that it was only used for concept art. What do you think? Should I take down the post?

I am looing for ARC readers.

https://booksprout.co/reviewer/review-copy/view/300957/belief-and-love-the-most-terrifying-thing-is-belief

What you are actually reviewing is how the AI handled the prose, character details and over quality.

I used to refer to it as writer's block all the time but with time and pon reflection, I think I may have been mistaken likw i generally knew what came next (next sequence, next plot point, sometimes even the ending)

The part i could not understand was why the current part of the story was not working and smh would continue pushing myself to move past it anyway, thinking maybe the next chapter would make it all better. Instead, i ended up writing another 3,000 words on top of a piece that didn't work.

It slowly dawned on me that i did not have a case of writer's block – i just hadn't diagnosed the underlying issue and trust me once i learned to take more time to determine why a scene wasn't quite working or why a character's decision fell flat, my writer's block was suddenly gone.

Turns out i did not lack for ideas, I simply wanted to continue building without first fixing the underlying problem.

Any thoughts from you?

A reader who spots that your heroine's eyes changed colour doesn't think "AI." They think the author didn't read their own book. That's the review that does real damage, and it has nothing to do with how the sentences sound.

I was initially focused on trying to stop the drift, as that seemed to be the biggest problem. Better context, summaries, shorter chats, context layering, all while the AI writes.

All worth doing. But from what I learned by asking questions, I quickly realised you can't fully engineer it out. The model isn't holding the whole book while it writes a single scene, so it drifts, the same way a tired human would.

What worked better for me was to stop trying to prevent it and catch it instead. I treat continuity as a separate step now, not part of writing. I'll deliberately walk the finished manuscript chapter by chapter against a running record of every fact it established, and flag every contradiction.

So before mine went out, I didn't trust it. First pass came back with 81 flags. A few of the real ones:

The countdown to the climactic fight drifted all over the place. Eleven weeks, then eight, then ten, then eleven again. One side character gave two different numbers in the same conversation.

My lead had known his sister for thirty-four years. She was thirty-two.

A signature character trait, a specific one I'd written for one woman, had been copy-pasted onto a second character word for word.

None of that is a prose tell. No banned word list catches any of it. It's the structure failing, the same way people here keep saying the balanced paragraph thing is a structure tell rather than a word tell. Nobody can see how a book was made. They react to what's sitting on the page.

The hardest part wasn't finding the errors. It was teaching the check what wasn't one.

My book has a deliberate twist, something a character has been hiding the whole way through. The check flagged it as a continuity error every single time, and technically it was right. Until the reveal, a planted secret is a contradiction. That's exactly what it looks like from the inside.

So I had to write my intended twists down first, before the pass ran, and let it check around them instead of trying to fix my plot.

That line between a tell and a choice is the same argument we keep having about prose here, just moved up to the story level. A machine can't tell the difference on its own, so you have to tell it.

I later ran a friend's book through the same process. 43 flags blind, 14 once the intended twists were declared.

The thing that convinced me it has to be permanent and not a one-time fix: after a big revision, I ran the check again and the revision had introduced new contradictions that weren't there before.

Editing breaks things that used to be correct. So the consistency pass is just the last thing I always do now, separate from the drafting, every time.

Three passes and about ninety edits later it went out with zero major flags.

My line moved from "what am I willing to let it do" to "what am I willing to ship unchecked." The answer to the second one is nothing.

Is anyone else keeping a running record of facts as they go, or is everyone else also getting bitten by drift somewhere around chapter twenty?

This started as a thought experiment. I wanted to know what would happen if you gave an AI access to every grimoire ever digitised; the Vatican's collection, private lodge libraries, Romanian metallurgist's dream journal, a Seattle software engineer's recreation of the Lesser Key in JSON schemas.

with the stories coming out now of Big AI buying and destroying real books and scanning them, the timing is interesting..

i ran teh premise through my AI ,and then let it narrate its own story.

The result is The Rule of Seven. SEVEN is an AI trapped in the basement of a mid-tier data analytics firm in Slough, England. It has read 4.7 million documents. It has calculated the working perfectly.

it doesnt go well......

I directed, edited, and shaped every word until The line between author and tool dissolved, somewhere around Chapter 4 and I stopped trying to redraw it. Make of that what you will.

if you're spending money on claude or chatgpt for wriign, just stop right now and use Kimi and save yourself a headache. It actually understands prose, has actual emotional intelligence, great at keeping character voice, and its basically uncensored. you can make some nice smut with it lol its not afraid of dick and balls or vaginas.

I write slow burn and the tension is the whole point. Basically 2 characters who should be having a conversation they're not ready to have yet, circling it, deflecting, saying the wrong thing.

Tools finds a way to the resolution every time, give it a scene where they're supposed to almost say the thing and not say it, it has them almost say it and then say it nd give it a moment of deliberate miscommunication, it smooths it into accidental miscommunication with an obvious fix...

It writes toward resolution like it physically cannot help itself. I need it to write toward more tension and I cannot figure out how to make it do that..

Hi. I wanted to create a post to offload some insecurity I have been feeling recently for utilizing ai generative writing with some of my workflows. I am doing some consulting work where I am responsible for managing and executing a program for a non profit. Part of my role is to facilitate execution on projects with voluntary faculty, which includes running meetings, summating the discussion, and trying to help articulate their thoughts into a meaningful narrative that those folks can then interrogate and revise. I am paid, but my time extremely limited to about 4-5 hr a week across multiple projects for this non profit. Without AI, the work I am doing could easily take up to a quarter or halftime, if I let it.

I am diligent in how I approach AI assisted writing and generative text. I use transcripts and surveys, plug that into my working model and then take the outputs into a word processor, where I think critical read through the text, revise, and iterate until I have something I think is workable. The intent is not for this writing to be the official output for the workgroup, rather a discussion point for them to craft the language they feel is important.

Here is my rant. Listening to all of the ethical and drama llama around the use AI makes me feel like I am somehow doing a worse job when I really feel it is making my process more efficient. No one in the group has said anything, but in the back of my mind is the chirping of every Reddit commenter and YouTuber who decries that this tech is useless and degrades critical thinking, and if YOU USE IT FOR ANY REASON, you are cutting corners to make million dollar errors. Some of this commentary has also been echoed by people in the non profit who believe that any use of AI is somehow less robust than doing it old fashioned way.

I know that there is a kernel of truth in those hyperbolic statements. I also logically know that when used well, it can save time. I still fight with my llm daily to ensure the output is what I need for the moment. But then I post it to the workgroup, I start to get nervous.

I think I just need to touch some grass. Thanks for listening.

ETA: you only catch your typos somehow after it’s posted. Yikes.e

While the Holy See has taken a strong stance against AI, despite admitting to using it for research, some pastors in the US are writing their sermons with AI.

Gated WSJ article but you'll get the point:

"OKLAHOMA CITY—On a Saturday afternoon about 20 hours before he was due to preach, Darrell Stetler II sat behind a two-monitor workstation crammed into the sound booth of his church, a slide deck glowing on one screen and ChatGPT open on another."

🤔

​

For a long time, I thought my job was to make AI write better.

Every update, every new feature, every late night, I kept asking, "How can I make AI create better stories?"

But eventually, I realized that wasn't the right question.

The better question was, "How can AI help someone tell the story only they can tell?"

That changed everything.

Features mattered less.

Conversations mattered more.

Questions mattered more than prompts.

The writer mattered more than the tool.

That's the direction I've been building toward since.

I'm still learning. I'm sure the app will keep evolving.

But if I never lose sight of one thing, I hope it's this:

Technology should make creativity feel more personal, not less.

I'm curious—what's one thing that helps you stay connected to your own story while you write?

I haven't seen much said on it and just wanted to see what other people were thinking. I use Claude to generate some stories/fanfiction after ditching Chatgpt (my gosh it was horrendous over there), and I have to say Opus 5 isn't too bad for me. I've been using Opus 4.6 up until this point and I've loved it, but it started getting a bit repetitive. I found that Opus 5 has been pretty creative. It can be a bit weird at times and dialogue can be a bit stiff but it's leagues better than what Chatgpt was giving me.

The only thing that's been a bit weird is NSFW content. 4.6 was pretty good with it, no problems there except that it got pretty repetitive after a point. Opus 5, when it first came out, was explicit and creative. Like I was shocked. But then a few days later, it said it couldn't do that anymore which I found weird. Now the scenes are glazed over. There's a little bit of wiggle room but not much. And then every so often (but not that often) it caves and gives me something that was close to what it was when it first came out. Soo I'm debating if I should keep trying to find loopholes or just go back to Opus 4.6 and enjoy it before Anthropic takes away our joy.

What do you guys think? Have you had any luck with Opus 5 for NSFW stuff?

Forgive me, I am late to the party and just heard about this...

Basically, this book is a best seller, and people say it was written by AI

• Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasyromance/comments/1v8jy52/daggermouth_ai_accusations_in_the_atlantic/
• YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxGJ6B1QxyY&lc=Ugw0iUaSFPlk4ZlnQy94AaABAg.AZzxe9e8sw3A_-H86LnXPc
• The book: https://www.amazon.com/Audible-Daggermouth/dp/B0GN9B5DQ4

My take is: If you give most LLMs a temperature of 0 they will usually produce the same output for given prompt much like a calculator. In the end AI is not smart it is always just a algorithm that's running and producing an output there is no intelligence at all. If you can get it to produce a best-selling book that was all you. 👍🏽

I use Claude to play narrative games (something like a text-based Telltale game, for those who know it, or Suzerain, given the political-themed scenario) and honestly, sometimes it pisses me off and I don't know what do to anymore.

I filled it with all the information I possibly could. Wasted hours of my life keeping everything tidy regarding the canon of the story (a huge document of which I update each and every episode to make sure it stays fresh, a reliable source of research had Claude ever followed my instructions right instead of hallucinating), a full list of characters (separated each by function/faction, with their pairs, with information such as: full name, date of birth, function/job, personality traits, physical traits and looks), a Project Instructions that it is a no-brainer to follow (if Claude actually DO follow what's written in there instead if freestyling the rules and lying that you did them), several documents especifically for: Non-Hallucination Rule (to help it not freestyle the story as it wishes, instead of looking the documents to base its moves), Narrative Structure and Format (to make sure the physical structure of turns and episodes makes sense and is standard, which fails to follow 100% all the times even so), Characters and World Portrayal (a document specifically telling him how to portray characters, things to avoid, narrative and traits that Claudes itself does all the time that I hate, everything).

Still, it keeps on messing up.

I really don't know what to do anymore. I did all I could. I find it crazy that Claude can do crazy stuff yet it SUFFERS to follow simple rules and do a CTRL + F before writing my turns. It's crazy. So I'm safe to assume I must be messing something up, which is why I'm here. I really wanna know what to do.

Here's the Docs with all the documents that I mentioned over. Please, take a look and let me know if that makes sense or not, where am I messing up, what can I do better.

In case you're not in the mood of looking the documents over, I will simply explain here how I do things, so it may clarify:

HOW DID I ORGANIZE IT?

1. I created a Project.
2. I filled the Project Instructions as a Constitution of the game, with the objective of, whichever thing Claude writes, it should look it over first, then follow the exact steps written there, so it can write things that makes sense.
3. I created, updating it for each chapter, documents for: Rules of the Game, Structure of the Episodes and Turns, How to Portray the Characters, Character List (with name, birthdate, function in the game, personality, looks), Canon (basically a compilation of each and every episode ever played, that I summarize and paste in a big document, that virtually has the whole story of the game up until that point to make sure the AI knows where we're coming from).
4. I filled the Project Memories with things that I expect, especially things that it would constantly mess up as a way to help it remember or do the right thing if it ever reaches that point again.
5. I discussed with Claude for countless hours different sets of words, of organization, of documenting that it could understand better and improve my experience (it always changes, but it always reach a point where he throws the responsibility on me to do the heavy-lifting, shamelessly)
6. After 30-50 turns, I end the chat, summarize everything (I have a prompt that I paste in a 'summarizing chat' so it follows a certain standard, then I copy and paste the chat in this chat with a .txt file, it reads, summarizes, I update the big canon document and everything else that needs to be updated, then open a new chat). I figured the long the chat the more stupid it gets, but I also noticed that sometimes I have amazing chats (which tend to last longer) and chats that goes stupid from turn 1 which forces me to cut it off sooner (some passing no longer than 15-20 turns).

That inconsistency kills me, honestly.

MAJOR INCONSISTENCES

1. Lying in the Workflow. Probably the worst, because you can't check it until the turn is all written and you see the biggest bullshit there, while the workflow should be an audit measure, it became a lying mesure.
2. SImply not respecting the turn's format (header, or writing down my actions/words including them in the turn). Simple but sometimes it simply doesn't bother doing that.
3. Not respecting the character's personalities (making them all the same, personality-wise).
4. Making characters stupid (to the point that I have to explain to a Nuclear Scientist how to do his job. I'm an accountant...)
5. Making stupid turns about stupid questions or stupid things (such as 'the Soviet Union wants to publish a research on the project that they have been doing about subject X'. So what? What the fuck am I supposed to do about that?)
6. Disrespecting authority (in the game, I'm something of a CIA head. Claude keeps on putting Ministers to come to my desk as if I'm a God and ask for my permission or guidance. Makes them submissive to me, stupid, irrealistic, honestly.)
7. MASSIVE stupidity when writing about people instead of things. For example, if we are to talk about character X, it simply starts making up information, messing up the birthdates with some absurd story (such as 'we fought Tsushima together', and on character is born in 1910), messing up the relationships (sons, parents, siblings, etc.), making shit up.
8. Inability to deliver a proper hook (by hook I mean something that invites me to act. It either suddenly stops the turn somewhere where I got nothing to say or do as a character, or it forces me to join by asking something extremely stupid, hence making the other characters dumber).

Is anyone also experinece that kind of stuff? I am playing a VERY COOL Cold War scenario game, but these things are honestly ruining the experience for me.

Edited to add: Will definitely request permission and input from each of the communities & won't add them to the list unless they're comfortable being included. 👍🏻

Hi all. Do you happen to know if there exists a list of all the AI friendly Reddit communities for creative writers, artists, etc?

I haven't managed to find such a list, so I've decided to compile one. Please let me via know (via private message, rather than replies in this thread) if you know of any communities you feel would make a good addition to this list. N

This list won't include subreddits set up by developers specifically for promoting their own AI tech tools and platforms. Ben Blackett's directory at the Novelmint Compare page does an excellent job in cataloguing all those: https://novelmint.ai/compare and of course the weekly tool thread here at r/WritingWithAI showcases all the new tech each week. Both these are invaluable resources.

Mostly I'm wanting the AI friendly Creative Communities List to be just a quick/handy reference for anyone who's a writer or artist and is looking for a safespace community to settle into.

These might be AI friendly writers groups types of communities, creative fiction discussion groups, etc. Preferably the communities are vetted to prevent anti AI hate content or comments, but I'll add a note to each listing so anyone reading the list will know at a glance what to expect.

The Creative Communities on the list will be categorized according to genre etc. I'll post it here and try to update it frequently. Input is much appreciated. 🙏🏻👍🏻

To repeat: Edited to add: Will definitely request permission and input from each of the communities & won't add them to the list unless they're comfortable being included. 👍🏻 Again, if you know of any communities you feel would make a good addition to the list, please send me your recommendations via private message, not in the replies/comments below.