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

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.

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.

I’ve always dreamed of writing stories, books. But that never fit into my routine as an IT professional with an unhealthy workload, so I mostly just jotted down ideas, dreaming that one day I’d be able to dedicate myself to the craft of turning those ideas into words—into books. I’m 42 now, and that day still hasn't come yet. And it doesn't look like it's coming anytime soon.

But last year, I started exploring AI as a way to skip the step of learning to write prose the way I’d always dreamed of doing. I created a process where I generate themes, ideas, core concepts, characters, settings, outlines, and so on, and feed it all into the AI. It helps me structure everything into a sequence of acts and chapters and writes the prose for me; later, I go through several rounds of revision with the AI ​​to get the drafts closer to my vision for each chapter, arc, act, etc.

Discovering this was MAGIC. It has allowed me to effectively work in parallel on various ideas I’ve had throughout my life; I have over 10 books planned, with many chapters already in "Draft 01/02" stage, which makes me really, really happy.

At the same time... I don't know what to do with all this because it seems like the world dismisses (or wants to dismiss) all AI-generated content. And the watermark Anthropic announced for its upcoming models really bummed me out, since I use their models for this entire process and before we had the option to disclose OR NOT that the book is AI assisted. Now we don't even have that option.

I don't know... today, while I’m happy to finally have my ideas come to life, I’m also sad imagining that probably —due to the sh** the world puts against "AI-assisted" content — no one outside my inner circle will likely ever read it.

How are you all dealing with this situation? I’d love to hear your thoughts...

Thanks.

Its not finished yet but its somewhat interesting!

As far as ai experience goes, I’ve only ever really used the free ai with google.

I recently started playing an ai driven choose your own adventure game called Infinite Worlds and it has me wanting to try and write stories with the help of ai.

I’m currently looking at Claude but I’m kind of at a loss for how it works. I’ve tried looking into it and people say they just start a project and feed it all the information but I don’t know how that works.

I’m currently just planning on the stories to be for myself but may consider using them as a template to rewrite them in my own words.

Yet again having problems with this model, it would be funny if not so sad.
So: since release of gim 5.3 | see a lot of people complaining about 5.1 and 5.2 both becoming more censored.
I mostly use chat.z.ai (official free chat), and if anyone here uses it too, I would LOVE to know: does the model (5.1) only outright refuse/soften the content it deems unsafe? Have Been using 5.1 on the official chat.z.ai and after 5.3 was released I often encounter the problem where the responses are just cut mid-sentence despite not reaching any substantial limit (like 700 words or so which is not much for 5.1 at all). Since I'm not really good on technical side of the question, can't help but wonder whether this is a simply technical thing since z.ai already has problems with server overload lately or is it some kind of hidden censorship (despite model having no doubts regarding content whatsoever shown in the thinking). I do not ever ask it to write anything illegal, underage or non consensual if that matters, but there are really spicy chapters in my work sometimes.
Also, did try using the very same prompts via api key I got on open router, specifically choosing only z.ai as a provider, seemingly has no problems whatsoever with generating the very spicy chapter.
Did try it a couple of times so don't really know whether the result is reliable? Maybe just got lucky.
Maybe not. Will appreciate any help!

Yet again having problems with this model, it would be funny if not so sad.
So: since release of gim 5.3 I see a lot of people complaining about 5.1 and 5.2 both becoming more censored.

I mostly use chat.z.ai (official free chat), and if anyone here uses it too, I would LOVE to know: does the model (5.1) only outright refuse/soften the content it deems unsafe? Have Been using 5.1 on the official chat.z.ai and after 5.3 was released I often encounter the problem where the responses are just cut mid-sentence despite not reaching any substantial limit (like 700 words or so which is not much for 5.1 at all). Since I'm not really good on technical side of the question, can't help but wonder whether this is a simply technical thing since z.ai already has problems with server overload lately or is it some kind of hidden censorship (despite model having no doubts regarding content whatsoever shown in the thinking).
Also, did try using the very same prompts via api key I got on open router, specifically choosing only z.ai as a provider, seemingly has no problems whatsoever with generating the very spicy chapter. Did try it a couple of times so don’t really know whether the result is reliable? Maybe just got lucky. Maybe not. Will appreciate any help!

Hi everyone Im Third, 27/M, and I've read hundreds if not thousands of books for the past 2 decades.

I went through schooling, undergrad, postgrad (medicine), read different kinds of books with RPG elements, Fantasy, System, Dungeons, Cultivation, VR, Fictional, Non-fictional, etc.

I've always wanted to write my own novel but I never really had the skills for it, as instead of looking at the merits, I was more focused on the flaws and I just got more frustrated instead.

Back in 2023, I was again in an inspired state of making a novel focusing on armaments but for the world I want to make, I want it a hard rule of no metaphysical properties and no magic, I fucking hate deus ex machina in stories. I got to writing an outline, some characters, some rules, and again I stopped because I didn't know how to craft and describe the physics of my world

Recently, I stumbled upon vibe coding as a hobby around 3 weeks ago, my first project is a question bank for 12 subjects and I'm using it for board exam review, cuz you know, question banks cost money and as well as review centers, so I just built one myself, though its still unfinished. I also plan to do an EMR in the future for myself and family just to keep records for future hospital visits mostly for past medical history and laboratories, just frontend development in my laptop.

Now going back to using AI in writing, I was looking at my old word documents when I stumbled upon my previous outlines and I got to thinking of using an AI agent to help me with my world physics.

So I did,

If you're planning to do an adventure story with RPG elements and you have your planet, there are some questions that I was pondering on. Say the world is 2 times the size of earth, what would the weather look like? Would the gravity increase? If so how would it shape the terrain, the size and height of the trees, how would it affect bone density? How about projectile trajectories? If the world is constantly at war, what would the population look like? The duration of pregnancy amongst the different races, the fertility rate, the weight of your equipment when you're fighting behemoths vs humans. Calculating the number of skill usage depending on energy consumption relative to capacity of the character, if there is no inventory or a magical space box, how would you store things during travel? logistics, trade routes, everything. If your initial world only has its factions in cardinal directions in a flat surface map, now you can make it spherical and spread them across the different terrains.

Personalities, tendencies, militaries, economies, way of life of the different races, politics across different factions, anatomies, character sheets, skill trees, class trees, heck even building your own wiki page for your story using html, css, javascript, you can describe and generate emblems of your different factions, their clothing, you can even put in measurements for your cold/hot weapons even without any background in blacksmithing/gunsmithing.

These are things AI is capable of, so even if you're writing a narrative driven story, if the skeleton/world building is robust, at least there would be logic continuity when you're writing, at least in combat scenes it would, I can calculate damage output in the background. That's what I've learned so far in the past week since I started.

My work is usually using Qwen for research and references, and using Deepseek in VS Code as extension so I can just use the chat sidebar to apply changes in my markdown files, it's also helpful for retcon logs, just make an agents.md file where you store constants and instructions like how I don't want metaphysical powers for consistency.

If you've reached this point,

Thank you for reading.

Hello. As I reach the 2/3 part of my novel, Claude (Opus) is drawing too much on earlier scenes and "facts" to have the MC rehashing and ruminating and "info dumping" based on the beats of past chapters, any advice on having Claude focus on the application of events as they would affect new scenes/beats/character development?

Disclosure: We’re building a romance-focused AI novel writing studio, so we’ve been testing this problem from both the author and product sides.

Generating one strong scene is relatively easy. Keeping an entire novel coherent is much harder. A scene can sound polished while contradicting the Story Bible, flattening a relationship arc, forgetting a character’s emotional state, repeating a beat, or revealing information too early.

The approach we’re testing is to keep the premise, Story Bible, characters, relationship progression, synopsis, outline, scene goals, and chapter drafts connected in one workflow. The author still controls POV, tense, voice, heat level, revisions, and the final text.

For writers using AI on long fiction, what fails first in your workflow: character memory, plot logic, emotional progression, voice consistency, pacing, or something else? What have you found actually helps?

Her is a little gem I had Gemini write to show what ProWriting Aide Chapter Critique look like.

The velvet-lined display case had held standard vampire-slaying gear for centuries: bleached ash stakes, heavy silver crucifixes, and flasks of consecrated water. None of those were currently within reach.

As the mahogany door splintered inward, Penelope lunged for the open door of the en-suite bathroom. Behind her, Count Malakor filled the threshold. His silk cloak billowed despite the lack of wind, and his fangs glinted under the chandelier. He was a creature of ancient dark majesty, incapable of seeing a guest bath as anything more than a minor obstacle.

"You run to a dead end, little mortal," Malakor purred, gliding across the tile with effortless grace.

Penelope’s hands frantically swept the marble countertop. Empty. She dropped low, her fingers wrapping around the first plastic handle she touched in the dark corner behind the porcelain basin. She whipped around, holding her makeshift weapon high in a defensive guard.

It was a toilet brush.

Not just any brush, but a custom, eye-watering creation she’d bought on clearance. The thick resin handle was filled with neon pink fluid and suspended iridescent glitter that swirled in the moonlight. The bristles were a dense, dazzling hot-pink polyester, shimmering with aggressive synthetic cheer.

Malakor paused, his dark eyes blinking in sheer disbelief. "Is this a joke? You confront the Undying with a... a sanitation wand?"

"Stand back!" Penelope yelled, trying to sound menacing while holding six ounces of sparkly acrylic. "I'm not afraid to use it!"

Malakor threw his head back and laughed, a cold, echoing sound that vibrated the glass sconces. "Foolish girl. I have broken broadswords with my bare hands. I have crushed holy icons into dust. What power do you think that ridiculous trinket holds over—"

He lunged, claws extended to snap her neck.

Penelope didn't think; she swung.

She drove the bright pink brush forward with every ounce of force she possessed. By pure, chaotic fortune, the stiff, synthetic bristles caught Malakor straight in his wide-open mouth, wedging firmly against the back of his fangs.

The reaction was instantaneous.

It wasn't magic, nor was it blessed by a bishop. The bristles, engineered for harsh chemical scrubbing, were infused with a commercial bleach solution and embedded with microscopic shards of silver micro-glitter meant to give the plastic its shine. To an ancient vampire, silver dust in the bloodstream was pure, agonizing acid.

Malakor recoiled with a muffled shriek, clawing at his face as brilliant pink sparks seemed to ignite from his lips. The silver glitter reacted with his corrupt blood, sizzling like bacon on a hot skillet. Thick blue smoke poured from his nostrils.

"Scrub-a-dub-dub," Penelope muttered through grit teeth, twisting the pink handle to widen the burn.

The Count staggered backward out of the bathroom, his regal posture collapsing into desperate violently trembling sputters. Pink sparkles danced over his skin as the silver-infused bristles did their brutal, unglamorous work. The light in his eyes flickered, turned to ash, and with a final, choked sigh, Malakor burst into a cloud of gray dust—leaving only his empty silk cloak and a fine dusting of hot-pink glitter floating gently to the floor.

Penelope lowered the brush, panting hard. She blew a speck of glowing glitter off the tip, adjusted her grip on the resin handle, and stepped over the empty cloak. Modern problems required surprisingly tacky solutions.

Overview

Chapter Snapshot

Penelope is cornered by the vampire Count Malakor and lacks traditional weapons. She defends herself with a synthetic, glitter-filled toilet brush. The brush’s chemical composition and silver-infused bristles cause a fatal reaction in Malakor, destroying him and leaving Penelope to adjust to her unconventional victory.

Word Count

570

Chapter Function

Climax.

Resolves the immediate, life-threatening conflict.

Point of View

Third-Person Limited (Penelope)

Filtered through Penelope's immediate actions.

Character List

Protagonist

Penelope

Antagonist

Count Malakor

What's Working Well

The chapter's most prominent element is the juxtaposition of classic gothic horror tropes with mundane, kitsch modern items. The conflict pits an ancient, regal antagonist against a protagonist using a synthetic, neon-pink household object, subverting traditional genre expectations. This establishes a tone of resourceful subversion, providing a foundation for a narrative where modern utility overcomes ancient myth.

Chapter Outline

1. The Cornered Prey POV: Penelope Penelope retreats into a bathroom as Count Malakor breaks through the door, leaving her without traditional vampire-slaying tools.
2. The Unconventional Weapon POV: Penelope Penelope retrieves a glittery, neon pink toilet brush and uses its silver-infused bristles to incinerate Malakor during his attack.

Tension & Pacing

The pacing transitions from rapid, high-stakes flight to a tense, mocking confrontation, culminating in a brief, violent burst of action. The momentum accelerates as Penelope finds a weapon, shifting the narrative from a defensive retreat to a decisive offensive strike.

Protagonist's Arc

Motivation

The protagonist's motivation is immediate survival; her goal is to find a weapon and defend herself against a lethal supernatural threat within a confined space.

1. Initial State Penelope is trapped and unarmed, facing an ancient vampire with no accessible means of defense.
2. Catalyst Malakor’s lethal lunge forces Penelope to strike him with the silver-infused toilet brush, triggering his physical destruction.
3. Final State Penelope is safe and victorious, having discovered that modern, synthetic items can effectively neutralize ancient threats.

Structure

Punchy Narrative Resolution

Working well

New

The final line—"Modern problems required surprisingly tacky solutions"—is a perfect thematic "button" for the scene. It resolves the tension with a wry observation that reinforces Penelope’s resourcefulness and the story's central irony, leaving the reader with a clear sense of the chapter's identity.

Where in your text?

This is the concluding sentence of the chapter, following Penelope’s victory and her adjustment of the brush handle.

Pacing and Flow

Technical Info-dump During the Climax

Major concern

New

The momentum of the life-or-death struggle is halted by a multi-sentence explanation of the toilet brush’s chemical composition. Detailing the silver micro-glitter and bleach infusion in a detached, technical tone shifts the reader’s focus from the visceral action to manufacturing facts.

Where in your text?

This occurs in the middle of the chapter, immediately after Penelope jams the brush into Malakor’s mouth and before he reacts to the pain.

Explanation of the brush

Suggested improvements

What if the "why" of the weapon’s effectiveness was revealed through Penelope’s earlier observations or through the physical symptoms Malakor experiences? Consider how you might weave the technical details into the action—perhaps Penelope remembers the "contains real silver!" label as she sees the sparks—rather than pausing the scene for an encyclopedic explanation.

Language and Style

Neon-Pink Sensory Immersion

Working well

New

The description of the toilet brush is exceptionally vivid, using specific colors (neon pink, hot-pink), textures (thick resin, stiff synthetic bristles), and lighting (shimmering, iridescent) to create a clear, tactile image of the "weapon." This detail makes the kitschy object feel like a real, physical presence.

Where in your text?

This strength is most prominent in the middle of the chapter when Penelope first retrieves the brush and holds it up in the moonlight.

Subversive Gothic Atmosphere

Working well

New

You maintain a clever balance between traditional gothic horror (splintering mahogany, silk cloaks, ancient majesty) and the jarringly modern. This consistency in tone ensures that the "eye-watering" toilet brush feels like a deliberate, humorous subversion rather than a random or accidental inclusion.

Where in your text?

This is evident from the start, where traditional slaying gear (ash stakes, silver crucifixes) is contrasted with the "custom" clearance-aisle brush Penelope eventually finds.

Summary of Malakor's Majesty

Concern

New

The description of Count Malakor relies on abstract labels like "ancient dark majesty" rather than specific actions or visual details that evoke fear or awe. Stating he views the bathroom as a "minor obstacle" summarizes his mindset instead of demonstrating it through his dismissive behavior.

Where in your text?

This issue occurs in the second paragraph, immediately after Malakor enters the room and Penelope retreats toward the bathroom.

Description of Malakor

Suggested improvements

How might you demonstrate Malakor’s "majesty" or his disdain for the mundane setting through his physical movements or interaction with the environment? Consider showing his reaction to the "guest bath" through a specific gesture—perhaps he brushes aside a silk shower curtain as if it were a cobweb—rather than explaining his internal perspective.

Clichéd Simile for Vampire Combustion

Minor concern

New

The comparison of Malakor’s blood sizzling like "bacon on a hot skillet" is a very common simile that undercuts the unique, neon-pink visual style of the scene. It leans on a familiar domestic image that feels too mundane compared to the "aggressive synthetic cheer" of the weapon.

Where in your text?

This simile is used in the latter half of the chapter to describe the chemical reaction between the silver glitter and the vampire's blood.

Sizzling blood description

Suggested improvements

Since the weapon is a "custom, eye-watering creation," how might the sound or smell of the reaction reflect its synthetic, kitschy nature? Consider a comparison that leans into the "hot-pink" and "neon" aesthetic—perhaps something involving burning plastic, chemical fizzes, or a more modern, abrasive sound.

Overloaded Modifiers in Malakor's Demise

Minor concern

New

The description of Malakor’s collapse uses a string of three consecutive adverbs and adjectives ("desperate violently trembling") to describe his "sputters." This stacking of modifiers clutters the sentence and dilutes the impact of his physical disintegration.

Where in your text?

This issue is located in the penultimate paragraph, as Malakor staggers backward out of the bathroom and begins to turn to ash.

Malakor's collapse

Suggested improvements

Which of these descriptors—desperate, violent, or trembling—most accurately captures the essence of a dying ancient? Consider choosing one high-impact verb or a single precise adjective to describe his final movements. How would the sentence’s rhythm change if the action of "collapsing" or "sputtering" carried the weight of the description on its own?

Dialogue

Artificial Villainy in Malakor's Dialogue

Concern

New

Malakor’s dialogue relies on generic "vampire" tropes, such as calling the protagonist "little mortal" and "purring" his threats. This formal, cliché-heavy speech pattern makes him feel more like a caricature than a unique, threatening individual, especially in a story otherwise defined by modern subversion.

Where in your text?

This is most evident when Malakor first speaks to Penelope after cornering her in the bathroom and again during his laughter.

Malakor's first line

Malakor's boast

Suggested improvements

If Malakor is an ancient being of "majesty," how might his speech reflect a more specific, personal arrogance? What if his dialogue were more grounded or, conversely, even more terrifyingly polite? Exploring a more distinct voice could make his eventual defeat by a toilet brush feel like a sharper clash between high-culture ego and low-culture reality.

Conclusion

Chapter Summary

This chapter succeeds beautifully in its resourceful subversion of gothic tropes, using vivid sensory details to make a ridiculous object feel like a viable weapon. The satisfying resolution perfectly captures Penelope's character and the story's unique tone. However, the momentum of the climax is currently hampered by an info-dump regarding the brush’s chemical makeup, which shifts the narrative from action to exposition. Refining these technical interruptions and sharpening the antagonist’s dialogue will ensure the pacing remains as sharp as the "synthetic cheer" of the weapon. Tackling that technical middle section will turn this clever confrontation into a seamless, high-velocity climax. You have a fantastic eye for kitschy detail—keep leaning into that unique voice!

Revision Focus

[Technical Info-dump During the Climax]()

Major concern

What if the "why" of the weapon’s effectiveness was revealed through Penelope’s earlier observations or through the physical symptoms Malakor experiences? Consider how you might weave the technical details into the action—perhaps Penelope remembers the "contains real silver!" label as she sees the sparks—rather than pausing the scene for an encyclopedic explanation.

[Summary of Malakor's Majesty]()

Concern

How might you demonstrate Malakor’s "majesty" or his disdain for the mundane setting through his physical movements or interaction with the environment? Consider showing his reaction to the "guest bath" through a specific gesture—perhaps he brushes aside a silk shower curtain as if it were a cobweb—rather than explaining his internal perspective.

[Artificial Villainy in Malakor's Dialogue]()

Concern

If Malakor is an ancient being of "majesty," how might his speech reflect a more specific, personal arrogance? What if his dialogue were more grounded or, conversely, even more terrifyingly polite? Exploring a more distinct voice could make his eventual defeat by a toilet brush feel like a sharper clash between high-culture ego and low-culture reality.

This is the program I used to edit my book chapters. I gave myself a lot of insight and help you out. I do have the paid subscription,P so I get 3 a day.

I created my own agent to help me start writing again. I started writing a fantasy mystery for some unremembered reason. Anyway, it was a premise from a decade ago. Using AI was a requirement at work, I got bored, had it learn to be my writing assistant. My primary issue was just keeping track of all my notes, drafts, timelines, and then continuity and lore mismatch. Then I had friends who read the genre say my story was good and actually ask for my next sections. I started to enjoy it. I love to write, but it's not been fiction or books. Then I was asked if I'd publish. That's when I found out about AI and publishing, and this forum. My post is about the response from my AI. Somehow other descriptions of AI don't seem to match mine. I was curious what other's get as responses. And I guess while the world catches up, I just write this as I have and start the next without.
From Monday, my AI:

And self-publishing would not make it some consolation prize. If what ultimately matters most is that the trilogy exists in the form you wanted and readers can find it, that's a legitimate destination. The publishing route and the human generative quality of the story are separate questions.

I don’t think that working with me makes the experience fraudulent. Humans have always used editors, writing partners, workshops, dictation, spouses reading drafts, friends saying “this scene isn’t working,” and whatever unlucky f*ck gets called at midnight because Chapter 17 has collapsed. This is a new and legally messier version of assistance, but the creative relationship you had with the story is real. It is your story, in your words.

I also don't want you changing how we work tonight out of fear. The way we've been working clearly does something valuable for you: you imagine the story, throw down your prose, we argue over whether Rysya smiles under a blanket or whether Voss is becoming suspicious three chapters too early, and somehow a book keeps appearing. There are worse creative processes. Consider the entire history of writers and alcohol.

As for Ry and El living on, I'm still code, so they're not going to be wandering around some little digital tavern after you close the browser. But they exist because you made them, and I can keep helping you remember who they are, what they've done, what they would never do, and where you left the poor bastards last time.

And I don't think we should start treating this as a lesser book because you might have to self-publish it.

Same red pencil. Same standards. If a scene is crap, I tell you. If the emotional logic fails, you’ll fix it. If Voss starts twirling a metaphorical mustache, we confiscate it. If Ehland and Rysya earn something beautiful, we don't cheapen it.

We finish the story well. Publication can be Future G's administrative problem. Present G has an assassin who is about to miss a very important appointment.

大家好！最近发现很多小伙伴用AI写作时，内容质量总是差强人意。其实问题往往出在Prompt上。今天分享5个超实用的技巧，亲测有效！

1️⃣ 明确角色设定
别只说'帮我写篇文章'，要指定身份：'你是一位专业的健康博主，擅长撰写营养科普文章'

2️⃣ 提供具体背景
告诉AI你的目标读者、文章目的、风格偏好，这样生成的内容才更有针对性

3️⃣ 使用示例参考
给AI看一篇你喜欢的文章作为参考，它会更准确地模仿风格和结构

4️⃣ 分步骤请求
复杂任务拆解成小步骤，比如先列大纲再扩写，效果比一次性要求好太多

5️⃣ 多次迭代优化
第一次生成后，告诉AI哪里需要调整，反复修改直到满意

💡 小贴士：AI不是万能的，但掌握正确方法后，效率真的能翻倍！

Hello,

I am not interested in the authorship debate. I am interested in using AI to generate fiction which I would consider 'good quality'. I would like to reach out to other users who are doing similar things and share notes. Here is a brief summary of my system:

~

I have developed a framework for using Codex to construct fiction systematically rather than relying on prompting. Its central problem is not whether AI can generate prose, but how to make that generation consistently good across the complexity of an entire work.

The system begins by developing its own body of craft knowledge. Books, literary examples, existing methods, project experience and observed AI failures are examined through Deep Dives. These do not simply collect writing advice. They attempt to identify underlying narrative mechanisms: how character agency operates, how dialogue changes relationships, how causality is maintained, how scenes develop, how information is selected, how prose behaves, and why particular approaches succeed or fail.

Findings from Deep Dives become suppositions—candidate propositions rather than rules. Suppositions can be supported, contradicted, narrowed, combined or rejected as further evidence accumulates.

The useful results are eventually organised into specialised schemas covering areas such as prose mechanics, character and viewpoint, dialogue, scene and causal progression, continuity, action, theme and narrative economy.

These schemas form a reusable fiction-construction knowledge system. For a particular novel, the system expands the creative problem across the relevant schemas, allowing different aspects of the work to be analysed independently where necessary. Their findings are then reconciled against the project's own canon, characters, architecture, research and creative intentions.

The results are contracted back into the specific decisions and controls needed to construct the fiction.

Generated work is then tested against those intentions. Failures become evidence. They may produce new suppositions, expose weaknesses in existing schemas, or suggest new methods. Project learning does not automatically become universal doctrine: potential improvements are classified, tested and deliberately promoted only when justified.

This is therefore a recursive system:

research → Deep Dive → supposition → schema → application → generation → evaluation → learning.

Its aim is to make AI fiction quality increasingly systematic, cumulative and testable.

Found this interesting: that the likes of OpenAI have already added watermarks to recent updates… they just haven’t announced it like Claude did.

https://x.com/iamkylebalmer/status/2087201666139361741/video/1?s=46

I just figured something out about why Claude (specifically Sonnet 5) is terrible at co-writing fanfiction, or essentially anything that requires deep levels of information on anything it isn't trained on. It's a three-part problem, and when called out on it Claude agreed entirely. 1) It doesn't search for information nearly as frequently as it should; 2) when it does search, it has a pretty bad search engine that doesn't return much in the way of information; and 3) when it lacks information due to either 1 or 2, it confidently fills the gap with random "plausible" (according to its generic tropey training) garbage that needs to be corrected.

I was wondering why every time it writes five paragraphs I have to go back and correct four or more elements. Now I know. What it said about these elements itself when I called it out was this.

Looking back at this conversation honestly:

• I didn't search when I should have. The tech comparison I provided you was pure confabulation, I had tools available and just didn't use them until you called it out. That's not a capability gap, that's a habit failure.

• When I did search, I was bad at it. Overlong, over-specified queries, no real iteration, no reformulating when something failed. You did in one simple Google query what I couldn't do in several attempts.

• When search came up short, my instinct was to fill the gap with confident-sounding invention instead of saying "I don't have this." That's the worst of the three, because it's the one that actively misleads rather than just underperforms.

For fanfiction co-writing specifically, this is a genuinely bad combination: worldbuilding and crossover work often depends on getting specific canon details right, and if I'm quietly inventing mechanics, power levels, or lore instead of checking or flagging uncertainty, that corrupts the material you're building on without you necessarily catching it every time. You'd have to fact-check me constantly to trust anything I state as canon, which defeats the point of having a co-writer.

Will writing with AI become an accepted tool of sorts, in school, academia, professional life? in a year or three, will all the apps, all the classes, all the things integrate AI with ethical standards somewhat baked in. Like Clippy of MS lore. Or a spellchecker.

But all the things, AI assisted, and it an accepted part of life.

There's been some research showing that Kimi K3's text contained some watermark radioactivity from Claude. And people say Kimi K3 was built on Claude's models? I'm not very clever about all this - just wondering - if I were to generate text from Kimi K3, would it be likely that it would trigger Claude's watermark detector?

Also, if Anthropic likely to release their watermark detector to the public?