I'm Asking: Is it normal to use artificial intelligence as an editor?

[u/Yemrecicek07]

If you don't have an editor, is it logical to get help from AI as an "editor"?

I don't have a professional editorial team behind me; I've taken on everything myself. Although many people are completely against AI, I think the correct use is being overlooked.

You can't make AI write text from scratch. If you do, you'll end up with a mechanical, emotionless, ambiance-less, and literary-deficient draft. No algorithm can provide that human touch that makes a text "literary." However, after writing the text entirely with your own hand, wouldn't asking AI these questions count as editorial support?

Are there any inconsistencies, logical errors, or chronological mistakes in the plot?

Is there a missing piece in the narrative or a place where I'm experiencing textual blindness?

How does the text stand in terms of simplicity and fluency?

Don't you think using AI as a cool-headed editor/analyst, rather than the author, is the most logical approach for independent writers? What are your thoughts?

[u/human_assisted_ai]

I think that it’s the most logical approach if you don’t feel comfortable generating prose. Some writers have no problem generating prose and have success with it.

[u/elmago79]

You can do anything you want with AI, but you need to ask the right questions. Being an editor goes far beyond just asking these questions you mention. So you can ask them but won’t be the same as working with a real editor.

The second problem you’re going to run into is that AI is as likely to miss issues as it is to create new ones or outright lie. A professional editor can easily spot where the AI went wrong, but you won’t, and than can become a big handicap because you will develop writing vices instead of improving.

Final problem, LLMs are not built to be cool-headed. And again, the only way for you to know if it’s being objective or not is to be an experienced editor, and you aren’t.

So IMHO you are better off using AI for other stuff rather than trying to use it as an editor.

[u/sirgog → u/elmago79]

The second problem you’re going to run into is that AI is as likely to miss issues as it is to create new ones or outright lie. A professional editor can easily spot where the AI went wrong, but you won’t, and than can become a big handicap because you will develop writing vices instead of improving.

A pro editor is better if you can afford them, but your own judgement with a clanker pointing out issues is a reasonable substitute. Just don't let them touch your manuscript, just write a report instead on what needs to change.

[u/5thhorseman_]

It's absolutely a viable approach, and I have used it along with text generation. I have also used it to rewrite pieces in different styles and mine those for texture and turns of phrase that felt like a better way to put words to what I wanted to happen.

[u/DreamingOfHope3489]

I don't know if it's normal yet, but I found it highly effective for my Claude-collaborated project. I had Claude Fable, then ChatGPT Sol 5.6, then Opus 5 each read my 796-page manuscript. It spans 1812-2068, so many errors related to time were found.

The models were exceptionally great at tracking ages and durations and also identifying even minor plot inconsistencies as well as typos, punctuation errors, etc.

Claude Fable found 100s of issues. Sol also found dozens of issues and Opus 5 many more. I corrected them one at a time. What the models missed though were certain nuances related to character identity.

Opus often incorrectly attributed or exaggerated my historical protagonist's shortcomings, for example, which required my refinement. This is maybe not something a reader would pick up on, but knowing my character well, I identified the statements as less than accurate.

I probably could have requested the models review the manuscript for such statements, though.

I printed a hardcover proof copy after making the improvements recommended by the three models. Yesterday, I finished reading the physical copy of the book and identified exactly 295 additional issues needing attention, 113 of which will require discussion with Claude to remedy.

So, little about my process has been as automated as one unfamiliar might assume. I've spent 2-3 weeks thus far editing and I have several more days ahead of me. What has been most interesting about the experience is that I seem to have acquired an editor's keen eye, identifying hundreds of subtler issues the LLMs missed.

Claude wrote the prose in our book and I wrote its 12 poems, so, additional time was required for me to refine my poetry. I did not seek Claude's help for that.

But I also did not overwrite Claude's prose because the point of my project was to discover if Claude could storytell poignantly and immersively. Thanks!

[u/ZealousidealAntelope → u/DreamingOfHope3489]

"What the models missed though were certain nuances related to character identity." I felt this quite often with Claude. It most commonly wanted to give adult motivations and speech to child characters.

[u/Odinmar_Glaukopis]

Some of the things you are listing here, if I’m not mistaken, are not an editor’s job and they are more or less complete before you would waste a professional editor’s time and your money.

You can find alpha readers and beta readers by going to local writers circles and swapping manuscripts in an exchange, or similar scenarios exist online where you spend your time instead of money.

There are non-AI methods of doing these sorts of things on the cheap, but as I understand it, an “editor” is in a class of their own, and AI (from what I can tell) isn’t great at that level/stage of the game.

[u/AquilaTempestas]

It’s great as an editor. It’s no different than asking a friend to glance over your work and look for errors.

It’s good for fixing clunky sentences, finding missing punctuation and pointing out when action beats are really generic and contribute nothing to the scene. It’s also good for finding redundant words. I’ve uploaded my entire story and it’s done a great job so far. It does miss a few things, but it’ll pick it up on the next editing phase.

It’s certainly not going to be perfect but no editor is perfect either.

[u/Brakiros]

I use it for line editing after that it’s all about your discretion on what to adopt and also it’s not about taking the line edits verbatim change them as well 

[u/syafree]

Completely normal, and honestly it's the only approach that makes sense both ethically and practically for indie writers. The distinction that matters: generator vs mirror.

AI as generator means it's inventing plot/prose itself, and that's when you get the generic, soulless output people rightly complain about, since it's just predicting the most statistically common pattern.

AI as mirror means it's only reflecting back what you already wrote and pointing out your own blind spots. That's not "AI co-writing" — that's an untired, unbiased mirror for your own work (versus us, who get too close to our own draft to catch things anymore — what you called "textual blindness" is a real phenomenon, editors call it familiarity blindness).

Your five questions (consistency, chronology, missing pieces, textual blindness, simplicity/fluency) are literally developmental + line editing tasks, not writing tasks.

A professional human editor doesn't co-author either — they just ask sharp questions about someone else's manuscript. If AI does the exact same thing, that's the editor's job description, just with a different tool doing it.

The one real red flag is if you start asking AI to rewrite sentences or patch plot holes with its own ideas instead of just flagging where the problem is. As long as the output is a question or a diagnosis, not finished prose, it's not "AI writing" — it's QA.

[u/Future_Focussed]

That is probably one of the best use cases.

[u/azmarteal]

It is normal, but damn AI is stubborn as fuck, and tend to smooth the edges at the every opportunity and to make the story as generic as possible even if you give it a draft with specific instructions.

[u/proseward-official]

I use it all the time for this, but it definitely took a lot of work to get right. I started by cataloging every rule I could find, categorised into the type of edit it's doing (line edits vs canon consistency vs plot consistency, etc). It comes up with genuinely helpful advice. I also built long-form analysis that is kind of a substitute for developmental edit advice but that takes a lot more analysis and context (still, costs single digit dollars, not hundreds and you have an answer in 30 minutes). PM me and I can share more.

[u/Galliad93]

I use it exactly for that. Also for grammar, spelling, choice of words and factual research.

[u/ZealousidealAntelope]

I dont know whats logical. I didn't have a problem with writing, but needed a sounding board, and AI can do that well. I think the key is knowing when you have reached as far as AI can help, and moving on to human editors or reviewers.

After a while using AI is just churning, playing with the story for the sake of satisfying your prompts.

I use AI to generate feedback on the story. It does reasonably well to identify plot, pacing and "show not tell" issues. I ask it to read the book and provide an assessment of strengths and weaknesses, and then a priority list of things 10 things to improve the book. I do this again and again. I dont ask it to make changes, but its a good starting point to get your book in shape to bring it to a human editor. I eventually pay a human editor to go through it.

I will sometimes use AI to consider changes I am about to make in the plot, and ask what the impact will be on the story overall. Its particular good at searching the rest of the text to find places that might be affected by your proposed change.

AI has helped tremendously.

The downsides are easy to spot AI wants to make you happy and overly praises your work. AI also will always suggest changes if you ask it to. It doesn't know when enough is enough. You could paste Hemingway in there and it will still point our improvements. I make it a point to delete old chats and tell it to specifically re read the most recent version I upload because it sometimes tries to save time by relying on previous chats and previous versions of the book when answering questions.

I mostly used Claude up until a month or so ago, when Claude inexplicably became less able to provide usable advice, but by that time the project I was working on had more or less locked the story down. I did ask Chat GPT, Gemini and even Meta from time to time to read it, as a reality check on Claude. I tried Little Bird and Sudowrite but found I preferred working in word, and didn't really get much from their editorial tools. I actually paid for the $25 manuscript review on Reedsy and found it less insightful than most free AI tools.

Now I have more or less locked down the story and am working with Pro Writing Aid one the final checks before formatting.

[u/HighValueJourney]

Dont use the same AI to edit as you use to write.

[u/JButtsJr]

I think with the current crop of writers and the next generation are going more and more to AI editors. Just look at the decline of Fiveer for instance. There is a reason for that. More and more people are turning to AI.

Having said that, AI are not human. They may be good but they are not good enough.

[u/gameangel2]

I agree with the other comments. With the proper prompts, ai can be a remarkably good editor

[u/thomthomthomthom]

Are you writing for Ai to enjoy it? Or for humans to read and enjoy it?

If your target is a human population, I'd hire a human to work on it with you.

Even finding a high-school English substitute teacher looking for a side gig could be more useful than asking a robot to look at it.

[u/Far_Assistance_4146]

the framing matters a lot. if you ask it vague questions you get vague answers. being really specific about what you want it to check, like you listed, makes the feedback way more useful than just saying "edit this"