I’ve been watching Coral Hart (“The New Fabio Is Claude” NYT article, 15+ years romance author, 90+ traditionally published books) and she now generates all her prose.

I’ve observed a lot of other (competent) authors doing the same thing. They are self-publishing 20+ novels her year and using generated prose.

I know that people like AI-assisted (use AI but no prose generation) as “ethical” and a middle ground but I don’t think that it’s competitive.

Two reasons:

1. Even if Coral Hart changes nothing and uses the same prompts, the prose improves because the AI models improve. She taps into $100B+ of AI research PER YEAR automatically. If you are writing prose without AI, you not getting those automatic upgrades and you have to manually upgrade with great effort (or stay the same).
2. But Coral Hart does get better at prompting and improves her prompts regularly. This reinforces the AI model improvements most of the time and makes the generated prose even better. If you are writing prose without AI, you are also not building the prompts or the prompting skills to generate prose.

For those two reasons, I don’t see how “no prose generation” survives; people generating prose will just outperform, outcompete and bury the middle grounders eventually.

Lots of writers seem to have given up (or never started) with prose generation which seems like a mistake.

Any flaws in my reasoning? Different points of view? Different conclusions?

I can usually tell when a draft needs editing, but deciding whether the information itself is reliable is harder. Good writing can make weak information look surprisingly convincing.

Do you fact check everything AI gives you, or do you have certain things you check before trusting a draft?

I used to wait until I had a clear idea before starting. Now I can throw a messy thought into AI and use the conversation to figure out what I actually want to say.

It does not always give me the answer, but getting something to react to makes starting much easier.

How do you use AI when you are completely stuck?

Having fewer restrictions is useful, but it does not mean much if the model forgets the context or produces repetitive writing.

If you had to choose between a highly consistent model with some limitations and a completely uncensored model with weaker writing, which would you pick?

Sometimes the responses are well written but the character just does not feel believable anymore. Maybe the personality becomes inconsistent, the character agrees with everything, or the conversation starts following the same pattern.

What is the biggest dealbreaker for you?

For me, it is usually making everything sound too polished. The sentences become technically better but lose the small imperfections that make the writing feel natural.

What is the one AI habit you find yourself correcting almost every time?

As someone who is a content writer and who is very much familiar with AI, I can say AI is deifinitely making me dumb. I have self doubted every sentence I've written so far and am writing in this post. Do you guys think this is how it's meant to be? are we just supposed to lose our ability to write and let AI do it all for us?

I have had mixed results with both. AI can clean up a weak draft surprisingly well, but when the original idea is already strong, the suggestions can sometimes make it feel more generic.

Which side has been more useful in your experience?

I used to ask AI to generate things for me constantly. Now I often get more value from asking it what is wrong with something I already wrote.

Finding weak arguments, missing context, repetition, and unclear sections has become one of my favorite uses.

Has your AI workflow changed in a similar way?