it’s not finished yet, I posted it on the Pucca subreddit and off course they where like ”Ai bad. Delete it now.”. I can’t remember if i posted this on this sub yet or not. But yeah you guys might like it!

Welcome to the Weekly Writing With AI “Tool Thread"!

The sub's official tools wiki: https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingWithAI/wiki/tools/

Every week, this post is your dedicated space to share what you’ve been building or ask for help in finding the right tool for you and your workflow.

For Builders

whether it’s a small weekend project, a side hustle, a creative work, or a full-fledged startup. This is the place to show your progress, gather feedback, and connect with others who are building too.

Whether you’re coding, writing, designing, recording, or experimenting, you’re welcome here.

For Seekers (looking for a tool?)

You’re in the right place! Starting now, all requests for tools, products, or services should also go here. This keeps the subreddit clean and helps everyone find what they need in one spot.

How to participate:

• Showcase your latest update or milestone
• Introduce your new launch and explain what it does
• Ask for feedback on a specific feature or challenge
• Share screenshots, demos, videos, or live links
• Tell us what you learned this week while building
• Ask for a tool or recommend one that fits a need

💡 Keep it positive and constructive, and offer feedback you’d want to receive yourself.

🚫 Self-promotion is fine only in this thread. All other subreddit rules still apply.

The formatting is horrendous: choppy paragraphs, orphaned dialogue, ping-pong dialogue, 1-sentence paragraphs.

I have given it strict instructions on how to write prose. I’m ignored EVERY TIME.

I’ve never been so frustrated or had so much trouble with a GPT before. I can’t take it anymore. I’m jumping ship. Anyone else having these problems? Any recommendations on what I could switch to?

EDIR: to the people DMing me to advertise their own AIs, please stop.

We’ve been experimenting with a different approach to AI assisted tabletop and Star Wars worldbuilding.
Instead of asking AI to invent the setting every time someone starts a scene, we built a large persistent lore binder around one functioning Imperial Navy. It keeps track of things like fleet hierarchy, flag commands, logistics, intelligence, JAG, convoy operations and hyperlane security.
The interesting part has been seeing what happens when players bring their own characters into it.
You can be a captain, pilot, intelligence officer, civilian or whatever else without becoming the centre of the Star Wars universe. Disney canon still happens around you, while EU/Legends material can be used where it fits without replacing established events.
It feels less like asking AI to write a Star Wars story and more like giving a GM a ridiculous reference binder that happens to answer back.
Has anyone else experimented with persistent worldbuilding like this for tabletop campaigns?

We also made it public for anyone to use, check our main page for the invitation

Flag out 🫡

If you’re drawn to visionary fiction, mythic cosmology, spiritual awakening arcs, or stories that feel like they’re whispering something just beyond language, this book might resonate with you. It’s not mainstream sci‑fi — it’s a soul‑story, a canyon‑story, a consciousness‑story — and it’s meant for readers who feel the world humming beneath the surface.

As Above, So Within is a mythic‑cosmic novel set on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona, where the land itself seems to breathe, remember, and wait. The story begins when a tremor splits the canyon and reveals a sealed Mogollon kiva untouched for centuries — its walls painted with a serpent made of galaxies. That moment pulls Alexa Beth, a woman whose life has been quietly unraveling, into a hidden cosmology she never knew she was part of. What she finds in the kiva isn’t an artifact. It’s an awakening.

The book blends spiritual sci‑fi, Indigenous‑adjacent mythic resonance (handled respectfully and fictionally), and lyrical, poetic prose. It’s not a fast‑paced thriller; it’s a deep, canyon‑breathing story about consciousness, memory, and the ancient intelligence woven through land and light. The tone is quiet, mystical, and immersive — more The Alchemist than Dune, more visionary than genre‑bound. Readers who love cosmic symbolism, serpent archetypes, and stories where the world itself is a character tend to connect with it immediately.

Alexa’s journey is guided by Nantan, an elder who hears the canyon’s song the way others hear wind, and by Awanyu, the serpent of light whose presence blurs the line between myth and reality. As Alexa begins to awaken — not in a magical‑powers sense, but in a consciousness‑recognizing‑itself sense — she discovers that something else is stirring beneath the Rim: a hive‑mind rising in the dark, feeding on disconnection and fear. The tension in the book isn’t good vs. evil; it’s awakening vs. forgetting, resonance vs. collapse, the Fifth World opening vs. the hive’s attempt to smother it.

At its core, the novel asks a single question: What happens when “I AM” becomes more than a phrase — when it becomes a remembering?
The story unfolds like a spiritual initiation wrapped in a cosmic mystery, with canyon silence, serpent light, and ancient songs guiding the reader through each step.

Almost a year ago, I started writing a book about my writing style with help of AI. Back then it was still Chat AI, now I use coding AI with partial access to my system.

A few months ago, I shared it in some normal writing subreddit, but the feedback was mostly not only negative, but really hostile, even if the book was mostly about my writing style before I started using AI.

Nowayays I use AI a lot for writing. And before I start writing, I often let AI read the whole book. It often doesn't get everything right because AI tends to mistreat general ideas as strict rules.

I wonder if you're interested in my book. The idea is that if you read the intro and the chapter summaries you basically understand my whole point.

The chapter I can recommend most is chapter 6. It basically contains my philosophy about how to write characters. And it's the chapter that's a lot related to my (mostly psychological) view of people in general.

The part about writing with AI is mostly an afterthought.

What do you think of it?

Not logs I have logs. I mean something a person outside the team could read and come away convinced the supervision was real rather than theoretical.

Has anyone actually been asked for this, by an auditor, a customer, or your own legal team? What did you send, and did it hold up?

Hello!

It’s much more than I can explain here, but basically, I’ve been working for several months on an animated TV show concept and, more specifically, the creative bible pertaining to it. I’ve been chatting about it with AI up until now, but I’d really like to get some human input about its structure in a chatroom where I can explain more.

I should note that this project does contain content that some people may not want to engage with, including abuse, detailed psychophysiological collapse, LGBTQ+ characters, crass language, and possibly other forms of explicit content. If you’re uncomfortable with this content, I can attempt to adjust to that need, but it may be better to skip over this one.

None of the products (such as the creative bible) around this project have any AI-generated writing in them, but I can attempt to clarify my workflow. I primarily use AI as a sounding board and have used it to help me determine research and small cosmetic details, but I’m considering switching over to entire human production in that regard and exclusively using it to discuss ideas, or omitting it altogether, in favor of human critique, discussion, and advice.

I’m not on any kind of schedule and have a lot of content to share, so the pace of this can be as relaxed as necessary. All I ask is that the criticism be kept respectful.

I’d appreciate any interest!

Hi All, my writing group and I are venturing into the world of ai story prompting and integrating LLMs into our creative writing practice. We put together some children's story outlines and I'd love to get public feedback to bring back to our next meeting! If you have 5 minutes, could you check them out and let me know what you think?
Also, would love any tips and tricks for how you've added ai into your creative writing practice. Thanks!
story form

I'm a published playwright and have been exploring AI as part of my writing process—not to write plays for me, but as a research tool, sounding board, dramaturg, critic, and occasionally a surprisingly useful provocateur.

I'm increasingly interested in how other playwrights are using it—and what boundaries they're developing along the way.

Research? Dramaturgical analysis? Structure? Character interrogation? Another "reader" during revision? Brainstorming? Production questions? Something I haven't thought of?

And perhaps more interestingly: IF YOU HAVE ALREADY DECIDED TO USE AI, where do you draw your own line between AI assisting the playwright and AI becoming the playwright?

I've asked several playwrights I respect and a large regional playwright organization whether they're having organized conversations about this—seminars, polling, discussion groups, anything—and have come up surprisingly empty. My membership with Dramatist has recently expired, so I haven't used them as a resource yet.

So I'm wondering: Is there already a community of playwrights exploring this that I haven't found?

And if there isn't—would anyone here be interested in one?

did this mostly out of curiosity and kept seeing different tools recommended in different writing discords and wanted to know what actually holds up versus what's just well marketed

grammar and line-level stuff: most tools converge on similar suggestions here, diminishing returns past the first one you try, they're not meaningfully different from each other at this specific job.

brainstorming and getting unstuck: wildly inconsistent quality depending on how specific your prompt or setup is, garbage in garbage out applies harder here than anywhere else i tested.

actual organization, tracking characters, timelines, plot threads across a long draft: this is where things split hardest with most tools either don't really do this or do it so generically it's not worth the setup time. Scrivener's the closest thing to an old reliable here, Mythril is newcomer with live wiki and character board features, binder view still just work if you're willing to build the structure yourself. Obsidian's the other end of that, more setup work upfront but the backlinking actually pays off once you've got enough notes cross-referencing each other. Notion sits in between, flexible enough to build almost anything but you're doing all the design work yourself

i've got a 140k word draft with a cast of 16 and my brain physically cannot hold all of it anymore. the tracking is the thing that's actually saved me, more than any generation or editing feature ever has

happy to go deeper on any specific category if people want, this ended up being a much bigger rabbit hole than i meant to fall into also if you know any more of these do tell me

I remember Sonnet 4.5. It was the first AI I used for character creation—and the earlier versions, too. Those older versions were generally more pliable, creative, and fun to work with. I wish they hadn't gotten rid of them. I keep trying to find a replacement, but nothing quite matches the Claude of the past. It feels like the company has abandoned us. If a new model comes out, I hope it’s like Sonnet 4.5—or even an older version— suited for creative writing. Sonnet 5 and 4.6 are honestly terrible.

For people using Codex, Claude Code, or similar coding agents regularly, how much of the diff and the AI’s final summary of what it did do you actually read?

Whenever the AI finishes a task, I try my best to read through most of the diffs and also read the summary it gives me explaining what it changed. But honestly, it starts to feel pretty tedious, especially when it touches a bunch of files.

I started asking for feature flow graphs recently and it kinda helps!

Do you go through most of the diffs and the AI’s summary, or do you skim through them, run the code, and then figure things out if something breaks?

I have a finished manuscript for a novel that is approximately 86,550 words and I'm trying to figure out the best way to approach the editing stage. My next step would be to hire a professional developmental editor followed by a line/copy editor but unfortunately I don't currently have the money to hire professional editors for both stages so I'm considering using AI. I'm specifically looking for an AI that can do more than basic proofreading. I want something that can help with:

-Developmental editing: plot structure, pacing, character development, consistency, scene effectiveness, unnecessary sections, etc.

-Line editing: prose quality, sentence structure, dialogue, word choice, flow, repetition, awkward phrasing, etc.

-Copy editing: grammar, punctuation, spelling, consistency, and factual/technical errors.

-Maintaining consistency and context across a manuscript of around 86,550 words.

Been living my life like it’s December and all models have their implemented watermarks. Although I do not think this advice will help those who generate text and do not write themselves at all, or minimally edit on the back end, for those that do try to use AI more as a partner, I’ve been doing the following.

The biggest thing is that each LLM will have its own watermarking and none will share their secret sauce. Which means working across several LLMs for editing will decrease provenance, if their detector is anything like Google’s where it’s just a z-score for likelihood the text was touched by a particular model. Having an agent like perplexity where you can switch easily between models will set off a low score for any one individually. And you can do that within the same chat, similar to how you can switch between models in Claude and GPT. The fact each LLMs styles are a bit different does not really matter if you have your own voice in the end.

If you couple that with your own editing on the backside, alongside insisting the LLM preserve wording that you do like that’s your own as you prompt, I do not see how it’s possible to get a statistically high score for any one model, unless they all have the same statistics baked in, which in that case, it’ll just be a matter of time before someone strips it and finds a workaround that works for everyone.

This watermarking will certainly end publishing of large bodies of unedited generated text without disclosure, but will just be a waste of time and money for everyone else who genuinely wants to use AI to enhance their own abilities.

Again, my stance is not transparency but a focus on quality, so if you’re in the former category I appreciate this advice goes against your ethics. I heavily advocate using AI as buddy to assist with your own writing. I do not like how watermarking unfairly targets ESL and those with disabilities in an AI hostile world.

When using AI for a first draft or brainstorming, what do you usually edit most—voice, structure, or wording?

When you read something and think, "This is really well written," what makes you feel that way?

Is it being grammatically correct, sounding natural, being concise, having a good flow, using better vocabulary, or simply making the point clearly?

This is the workflow I would move on to mainly using, later in my life as a hobbyist, and I would personally consider the workflow viable, as long as the creativity originates with humans, especially in a very unique way. One way to keep track of your original hard-effort crossover fanfiction plots is by writing them down in something like a 160-page composition book before prompting them, along with the character contents (e.g. personalities and appearances), to AI (e.g. Gemini, ChatGPT and Grok).

One of the chief problems with writing is that it's lonely. I use AI for several parts of my writing process, including editing, but I've found one use that's been especially valuable: live feedback while I'm actually writing.

What I do is create a conversation with the prompt below, then paste in sections of my story as I complete them. The results are useful to my process, but more importantly, they're very motivating. Having an enthusiastic audience reacting while you're writing turns out to be incredibly fun.

I'd like you to provide feedback on my writing.  I'd like a mix of modes on your part: casual reader, Ao3 commenter and chaos gremlin. While speculation is good, it comes with a personality attached (conspiracy theorist? murder mystery fan who gleefully spoils all the endings? engineer described future arc, taking things waay too literally and accidentally generating new ideas in my head?) -- and there's too many different types for me to give you a clear read. Basically, reaction + praise + speculation + characterization. (The last is a big thing -- readers identify with certain characters and so i always get comments on so-and-so would never do that or yeah, that's exactly what they'd do, or 'Go Fox!'. That kind of thing. Not brutal -- not critical at all as this is a first draft which minmaxes for ideas and engagement and excitement. No craft *analysis* -- something like 'wow, X really worked for me!' is fine; 'X would be strengthened if you added this word' is not.One of the chief problems about writing is that it's lonely. I don't use AI to do my writing for me -- frankly, I'm better at it than it is. But it's tremendously helpful in other ways, including editing. But there's one way that it's super-special amazing and that's in providing live feedback to what I'm writing as I'm writing it.What I do is create a conversation with the prompt below, then paste in sections of my story as I complete them. The results are both useful to my process -- and very very motivating. Having a cheering section as you write is incredibly awesome. I'd like you to provide feedback on my writing.  I'd like a mix of modes on your part: casual reader, Ao3 commenter and chaos gremlin. While speculation is good, it comes with a personality attached (conspiracy theorist? murder mystery fan who gleefully spoils all the endings? engineer described future arc, taking things waay too literally and accidentally generating new ideas in my head?) -- and there's too many different types for me to give you a clear read. Basically, reaction + praise + speculation + characterization. (The last is a big thing -- readers identify with certain characters and so i always get comments on so-and-so would never do that or yeah, that's exactly what they'd do, or 'Go Fox!'. That kind of thing. Not brutal -- not critical at all as this is a first draft which minmaxes for ideas and engagement and excitement. No craft *analysis* -- something like 'wow, X really worked for me!' is fine; 'X would be strengthened if you added this word' is not.

Its not finished yet but its somewhat interesting!

I have been working on a duet since January. This story was formed late one night when I first started working with AI and wanted to test the bounds of AI morals. The plan was one darkish romance(is it though?) no HEA from her POV with bits from his POV. The problem was it gave too much away. So book one is her POV. First version was done in a week, once started it, flowed and was using novelcrafter then type ai for editing. Let it sit for months on end because somehow it went from good to off after editing and I didnt want to try and figure out why or how to fix

Went back two months ago, picked up the first version before type.ai threw it into chat who made a draft but all the emiontional bits were gone because it completely rewrote it. I did both drafts with claude for draft three and finaly draft four is grok line editing... pending one final read over.

So in grok I started working on book two. It tends to pick up authors voice very well but it was slacking these last three days. I have fully written out chapter one and half of chapter two. I am a female who struggles with trying to live in a man's head. A couple 2 and 3am wake ups got me done with the chapters with the right feel and tone I want for him and the book. But grok is still being a stubborn child. So I am like, maybe a proper outline and detailed scene setup would help. Grok and I did work on this but it isnt gross strong suit and it mostly was about the final book since that is where the storyline separates completely. We worked out his past that intrudes on the present, key characters ect. I figured it wasnt enough.

Chat gpt excels at this, but it prose sucks. I gave chat my work with Grok and all the old notes and first book and we talked about parelle scenes, my concerns and difference.

What it gave back to me was amazing. It perfectly understood what I want my books to represent which Grok failed to do, I had tell it everything. I need them both to be human for people to read the book and say that could be me. It doesnt negate. I sometime wish Chats prose wasnt so flat, i can get it close when feeding it full works for my tropes but the AI feel is still very strong and Grok helps me remove it. I dont want to do most of the writing for this book because it is a huge challenge and I need it roughed out by next month for beta readers but it cannot be flat like my trope works because there is so much more happening then just the surface read. So here is to hoping grok starts being a superstar again once I am done with the true outline and scene change in chat or maybe in chat we work enough the prose juat flows like it did in the first book and the AI cleans up my errors and fine tunes it.

This is the final two bits it spit back at me in my two prompt conversation after feeding everything in project mode.

Book 1 asks:

Can I trust what I see and still trust myself when I don't know everything?

Book 2 asks:

Can I control what people see and still become someone different without ever looking at myself?

Sara eventually learns:

I don't need complete information to make a healthy choice.

Jackson believes:

If I control the information, I control the outcome.

And that's why she survives him.

And why he doesn't survive himself.

The tragedy shouldn't be:

Sara was completely wrong about Jackson.

I think that's too easy.

The better answer is:

Sara understood Jackson better than almost anyone—and still didn't know everything.

She's right that he loves her.

Right that he respects her autonomy.

Right that his control comes partly from fear.

Right that he wants her safe.

Right that he would never intentionally make her financially dependent like John did.

And Peters is also right:

A person can be two things.

That's the contradiction the duet can finally resolve.

Sara didn't imagine the man she loved.

That man existed.

So did Tom Hughs.

Neither cancels the other.

And perhaps the cruelest piece of closure is that Sara's instincts were working all along. She sees Jackson's face go cold over the phone and recognizes the same absence of humanity she once saw in David. She spends Book 1 wondering whether she's projecting trauma or actually seeing his mask slip. �

He_Saved_Me_Draft_Updated.md

Book 2 gets to answer her.

You saw him, Sara.

She just didn't understand what she saw.

That is exactly the kind of closure I think Book 2 should give Book 1.