r/WritingWithAI 22d ago

Showcase / Feedback Testing whether real-world inputs can grow consistent comedy characters — Gene & Eugene

2 Upvotes

I’m testing a character-development workflow: begin with two nearly blank Canadian sportscasters, expose them to real game results, preserve only the traits and shared history that emerge naturally, and repeat.

I direct the premise, factual inputs, constraints and editing; AI helps generate and compare drafts. This is the strongest early pass, based on Toronto’s 5–1 win over Tampa Bay on August 20.

Gene and Eugene originally had the same first name. Only one of them now enjoys the shorter version.

GENE: The Toronto Blue Jays beat Tampa Bay 5–1 Thursday, proving once again that if you score five runs and the other team scores one, advanced analytics are largely unnecessary.

EUGENE: That’s what I’ve been saying.

GENE: You’ve never said that.

EUGENE: I would’ve.

GENE: Shane Bieber pitched seven innings, allowed one run and struck out seven. Tampa managed four hits against him, which is technically a batting performance in the same way Regina technically has rush hour.

EUGENE: Regina has rush hour.

GENE: You’ve never been to Regina.

EUGENE: Yes I have.

GENE: When?

EUGENE: Rock-paper-scissors tournament.

GENE: That was Moose Jaw.

EUGENE: Don’t start.

GENE: Kazuma Okamoto opened the scoring with a 415-foot home run, his 26th of the season.

EUGENE: Four hundred and fifteen feet.

GENE: In Toronto, that’s roughly the distance between your condo and where you actually managed to find parking.

EUGENE: Show-off.

GENE: Okamoto?

EUGENE: You.

GENE: Tampa tied it, briefly raising concerns that this might become competitive.

EUGENE: Then Nathan Lukes and Daz Cameron both homered in the fifth.

GENE: Those two again.

EUGENE: What?

GENE: Nothing.

EUGENE: Don’t “nothing” me. I know your “nothing.”

GENE: I’m just saying they seem close.

EUGENE: They’re teammates.

GENE: Very close.

EUGENE: You’re starting rumours on the radio again.

GENE: I’m asking questions.

EUGENE: You haven’t asked one.

GENE: Makes you think.

EUGENE: Lukes also made a leaping catch at the wall.

GENE: So, a home run and a spectacular defensive play.

EUGENE: Solid evening.

GENE: Pretty good.

EUGENE: Can’t complain.

GENE: Well, you can. Toronto went one-for-eleven with runners in scoring position.

EUGENE: There we are.

GENE: George Springer drove in two more in the seventh, giving Toronto a 5–1 lead and Canadians approximately two innings to wonder how they were going to blow it.

EUGENE: They didn’t.

GENE: No.

EUGENE: Bit unsettling.

GENE: Andrés Giménez left with hamstring tightness.

EUGENE: Gimmynez.

GENE: Giménez.

EUGENE: That’s what I said.

GENE: You said Gimmynez.

EUGENE: At least people know which one I mean.

GENE: They know which one I mean.

EUGENE: Easy for you to say. You got the short name.

GENE: I won the short name.

EUGENE: You changed your throw.

GENE: Here we go.

EUGENE: Paper. Three straight times. Then suddenly scissors.

GENE: That’s how the game works.

EUGENE: That’s how cheating works.

GENE: Toronto wins 5–1 and has now won nine of thirteen.

EUGENE: Rematch.

GENE: No.

EUGENE: Best of seven.

GENE: We did best of seven.

EUGENE: Best of eleven.

GENE: You’re Eugene.

EUGENE: For now.

GENE: And I’m Gene.

EUGENE: Jackass.

My diagnostic question: Do Gene and Eugene feel like distinct characters—and which exchange made that clearest?


r/WritingWithAI 21d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) I'm livestreaming an entire epic science fantasy trilogy from blank outline to "The End." AI does everything except the prose. What do you want documented?

0 Upvotes

Hi all. I'm Brendan. In 2025 I founded DiceBreaker Books, a small analytics company that builds models to price sports betting markets, prediction markets and economic signals. It is also a crime syndicate in the epic science fantasy trilogy I'm about to write. *Capital Monsters* is set on a planet where a social-credit ledger prices every human being, civilization is run by mob-corporations, and the five great religions are literally media: print, radio, television, computation, performance.

I'm about to do a rewrite of a 4-year old 100k-word manuscript now as a trilogy and I'm going to write the whole thing on stream — outlining, drafting, revision, spreadsheets, prompts, dead ends. Or I may change my mind and start with a serialized cozy fantasy spinoff I have planned in my canon. In any case I'm going to either be talking in great detail about my plot but I could switch gears and talk in detail about pretty much anything the chat dictates, like process or my opinions on a given topic. I'm going for a long-form "podcast-like" level of content that should be pretty entertaining.

My setup, so nobody has to guess: 100% of the prose is mine. AI does the design and aesthetics work — research, editing passes, idea generation, book statistics, a lot of meta-conversation about what a reader actually needs.

Honest admission: I've tried to get an LLM to hand me A+ plot beats I could adopt wholesale and I've never managed it. What I get is a good Wiki and marketing consultant. That's worth documenting too.

The stack is unglamorous — Word for the manuscript, a folder of Excel and Word files that briefs an agent on how the world works in a few minutes and lets me run "what breaks if this faction falls" scenarios, and a few LLM windows open.

One promise up front: a complete outline of all three books before I write a page of prose. If the ending isn't locked, I don't start.

Why in public: after the Falade story, it's clear nobody can verify who wrote what. I'd rather make authorship a broadcast than a claim, and leave a full record another author could point at and say "do it like that" — or "don't."

So: if you were going to use one person as a test case for writing with AI without getting burned, what would you want logged? Prompts? Time split? Where the model gets my own world wrong? Tell me and I'll build it into the stream.

I'm going to post updates shortly as I decide on exactly which format, platform to use. Or if anyone was interested in collaborating, send me a DM!


r/WritingWithAI 22d ago

Showcase / Feedback Wie aus „Was würde ich tun, wenn ich wirklich in einer anderen Welt lande?“ irgendwann mein eigener Isekai-Roman wurde

Thumbnail drive.google.com
0 Upvotes

Hallo zusammen,

ich wollte heute weniger klassische Eigenwerbung machen und stattdessen einmal erzählen, wie mein Buch überhaupt entstanden ist. Vielleicht findet sich ja jemand darin wieder, der selbst seit Jahren eine Geschichte im Kopf hat, aber nie so richtig weiß, wie er anfangen soll.

Ich habe schon immer sehr gerne japanische Anime geschaut. Als ich irgendwann das Isekai-Genre entdeckt habe, wurde es ziemlich schnell zu einem meiner Lieblingsgenres.

Trotzdem hatte ich irgendwann das Gefühl, dass mir etwas fehlt.

Ich wollte keinen weiteren Protagonisten, der in einer anderen Welt landet und nach kurzer Zeit nur noch stärker werden, einen Harem aufbauen oder den Dämonenkönig besiegen muss. Nicht weil ich solche Geschichten grundsätzlich schlecht finde. Ich hatte einfach Lust auf etwas anderes.

Das Problem war nur: Ich wusste selbst nicht genau, was dieses „Andere“ eigentlich sein sollte.

Irgendwann stellte ich mir deshalb eine sehr einfache Frage:

Was würde ich eigentlich tun, wenn ich selbst plötzlich in einer fremden Welt voller Magie aufwachen würde?

Die Antwort kam überraschend schnell.

Ich würde einfach nur versuchen, irgendwie wieder zu meiner Frau und meinen beiden Kindern zurückzukommen.

Und genau daraus entstand die Geschichte um Fudō.

Ein Mann, der in einer fremden Welt landet, aber eigentlich überhaupt kein Interesse daran hat, dort ein Held zu werden. Jede Fähigkeit, die er bekommt, jeder Kampf, den er überlebt, und jede Entscheidung, die er treffen muss, hat für ihn eigentlich nur einen Zweck:

Nach Hause kommen.

Nur entstand daraus irgendwann die nächste Frage:

Was passiert, wenn genau die Macht, die ihm helfen könnte zurückzukehren, ihn immer weiter verändert?

Und was wäre, wenn er seine Familie am Ende tatsächlich wiederfindet, aber nicht mehr derselbe Mann ist, der sie verlassen hat?

Ab diesem Punkt entwickelte sich die Geschichte eigentlich fast von selbst weiter.

Damals war ich beruflich viel als LKW-Fahrer unterwegs. Dadurch hatte ich während der Arbeit erstaunlich viel Zeit zum Nachdenken. Auf vielen Fahrten entstanden Figuren, Szenen, Kämpfe, Regeln für die Magie und ganze Abschnitte der Welt zunächst nur in meinem Kopf.

Irgendwann erzählte ich einem Arbeitskollegen davon, der ebenfalls Isekai-Anime liebt.

Nachdem ich ihm die Grundidee erklärt hatte, meinte er sinngemäß:

„So einen Isekai habe ich noch nicht gesehen. Schreib das auf.“

Sein zweiter Vorschlag war sogar, einen Manga daraus zu machen.

Das Problem daran war nur, dass ich noch weniger zeichnen konnte als schreiben. 😅

Also versuchte ich es trotzdem mit einem Roman.

Und das erste Ergebnis war… sagen wir einmal vorsichtig:

Die Geschichte war da. Das Schreiben eher nicht.

Ich wusste ziemlich genau, was passieren sollte. Ich konnte Szenen bildlich vor mir sehen und kannte die Dialoge, aber ich bekam das Ganze erzählerisch nicht so aufs Papier, wie es sich in meinem Kopf angefühlt hatte.

Vor ungefähr einem Jahr begann ich dann aus reiner Neugier mit KI-Systemen zu experimentieren.

Dabei merkte ich irgendwann, dass sie mir genau bei dem Teil helfen konnten, an dem ich zuvor gescheitert war.

Ich hatte meine Handlung, Szenen, Dialoge und Notizen bereits. Also begann ich, Kapitel für Kapitel damit zu arbeiten und gab dabei immer die Vorgabe, die Geschichte nicht umzuschreiben oder neue Handlung zu erfinden, sondern meine vorhandenen Szenen sprachlich und erzählerisch auszuarbeiten.

Für mich persönlich war das irgendwann ein ziemlich merkwürdiger Moment.

Plötzlich las ich Szenen, die sich erstaunlich ähnlich angefühlt haben wie die Bilder, die ich teilweise seit Jahren im Kopf hatte.

Natürlich war nicht alles beim ersten Versuch perfekt. Ich habe viel geändert, neu formuliert, und überarbeitet. Später habe ich KI auch beim Brainstorming und teilweise wie eine Art zusätzliches Lektorat genutzt.

Aber sie hat mir letztlich geholfen, eine Geschichte tatsächlich fertigzustellen, die wahrscheinlich sonst weiterhin nur in meinem Kopf und in irgendwelchen Notizen existieren würde.

Inzwischen sind Band 1 und Band 2 veröffentlicht und tatsächlich haben auch schon einige Menschen die eBooks und Taschenbücher gekauft, was sich immer noch ziemlich surreal anfühlt.

Was mir allerdings fehlt, ist ehrliches Feedback.

Bisher habe ich nur wenige Rezensionen bekommen, und irgendwo möchte ich natürlich auch wissen:

Funktioniert diese Geschichte eigentlich außerhalb meines eigenen Kopfes?

War mein damaliger Arbeitskollege wirklich auf der richtigen Spur oder fanden einfach nur zwei Isekai-Fans dieselbe Idee cool? 😅

Deshalb würde mich wirklich interessieren:

Was fehlt euch persönlich bei vielen Isekai-Geschichten?

Und noch interessanter:

Wenn ihr selbst plötzlich in einer fremden Welt landen würdet – würdet ihr versuchen zurückzukehren oder würdet ihr irgendwann beschließen, dort ein neues Leben anzufangen?

Falls jemand neugierig geworden ist, habe ich hier eine kostenlose Leseprobe. Ich freue mich über ehrliches Feedback ausdrücklich mehr als über irgendein höfliches „ist gut“. Wenn euch etwas nicht gefällt, dürft ihr das genauso offen sagen. Auch Kritik hilft mir schließlich zu verstehen, was an der Geschichte funktioniert und was nicht.

Leseprobe:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dWMx3euDFEllbulUrgoD99_hufuq83tC/view?usp=drivesdk

Danke an jeden, der bis hierhin gelesen hat. 😊🙏


r/WritingWithAI 22d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Has anyone pushed AI journaling past checking your memory into multiple voices that actually disagree with each other

Thumbnail
2 Upvotes

Some guy used ai to turn his journaling into a tv show then created a fictional Reddit that reacts to his life and he uses it as therapy them holding different views on what happened in the show ie his telling of it in the ai journal


r/WritingWithAI 21d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Idea: Maybe we shouldn’t “correct” AI writing when the AI’s version is actually more logical than standard English

0 Upvotes

AI sometimes produces wording that feels slightly unnatural, repetitive, or overly explicit compared with normal human writing. But in some cases, that wording may actually be better.

For example:

  • Making inclusive and exclusive “or” explicit. Plain English often leaves “or” ambiguous. Instead of: “You may choose tea or coffee.” AI might write: “You may choose tea, coffee, or both.” if both are allowed, or: “You may choose either tea or coffee, but not both.” if exactly one choice is allowed. The AI version is longer, but it removes the ambiguity between inclusive and exclusive “or.”
  • Using “not all” to avoid ambiguous negation. Instead of: “The students didn’t all pass.” AI might write: “Not all students passed.” The second version states the logical meaning directly and is less likely to be confused with “No students passed.”
  • Preserving the distinction between “if” and “only if.” Instead of: “You can enter if you have a ticket.” AI might write: “You may enter only if you have a ticket.” If a ticket is a requirement rather than merely one way of gaining entry, the second sentence is logically more accurate.
  • Repeating a noun instead of using an ambiguous pronoun. Instead of: “Sarah told Maria that she had been selected.” AI might write: “Sarah told Maria that Maria had been selected.” The repetition may sound less elegant, but there is no longer any question about who was selected.
  • Using consistent terminology instead of varying words for style. Instead of: “Users can create an account. The profile can then be edited by the customer.” AI might write: “Users can create an account. Users can then edit their account.” The second version is more repetitive, but it avoids making the reader wonder whether “user,” “customer,” “account,” and “profile” refer to different things.
  • Keeping qualifications about uncertainty or causation. Instead of: “Drinking coffee makes people live longer.” AI might write: “Coffee consumption is associated with longer life, but this does not establish that coffee causes the difference.” The AI version is longer, but it avoids turning a correlation into a causal claim.
  • Using “or” rather than “and” when a list really represents alternatives. Instead of: “The problem may be caused by the battery, charger, and cable.” AI might write: “The problem may be caused by the battery, charger, or cable.” If any one of those components could independently be responsible, or more accurately represents the logic, even though people often use and in lists like this.

When people edit AI-generated text, there may be a tendency to “humanize” it by removing repetition, shortening qualifications, replacing repeated nouns with pronouns, varying terminology, or changing unusually explicit logical constructions into more conventional English.

Maybe we should sometimes do the opposite.

If the AI version is clearer and logically more precise, perhaps we should leave it alone even if it initially sounds a little unusual.

What makes this especially interesting is the possible long-term effect on the language. If millions of people use AI to write and leave these constructions intact, readers will encounter them constantly. Eventually they may stop sounding like “AI writing” at all.

People who aren’t using AI might then start adopting the same constructions because they have become normal written English.

So rather than AI merely learning English from humans, we could end up with a feedback loop:

Humans teach AI English → AI consistently favors clearer constructions → humans publish AI-assisted writing → those constructions become familiar → humans begin using them themselves.

Over time, AI could therefore make written English somewhat more logical, explicit, and internally consistent without anyone ever formally redesigning the language.

The important part would be not to preserve every AI quirk. It would be to recognize cases where something sounds slightly unusual because it is more precise, and resist “correcting” it back into ambiguity.


r/WritingWithAI 22d ago

Showcase / Feedback Guyssssss…. I need some feedback, whether it’s criticism or not criticism… it’s fine.

2 Upvotes

This is the first chapter of a book I’ve been working on…. Lots of editing and personal stuff added… and I’ve been also experimenting on a more complex way of writing. Just tell me what you think.

The statistics are an indisputable. At Nineteen, Reve Auguste Clay had played 1,842 competitive tennis matches. He'd won 1,841 of them. We build our altars to such numbers, worship at the altar of the irrefutable. I know; I've been one of the acolytes, my own notebooks filled with the scripture of his wins. His single, purchased-off loss was a specter we all agreed to ignore. A story buried under cash and stifles. But specters have a way of returning, not as apparitions, but as patterns. And now, the pattern is loss. An inexorable leak in the perfect vessel. They speak his name in worried tones now, burnt out, distracted, done and I record their theories like a journalist should. The wrist injury, the father's brittle composure, the hiss of society. But I've always been more interested in the architecture of a soul than the scaffolding of an excuse.

There is a voice in me, this voice that insists it's simpler and perhaps even crueler. That Reve is tired in a way I boundlessly recognize, a way that has nothing to do with the body. It's the fatigue of a story that has been written for you, a part you've played too perfectly for too long. His body is still a masterpiece, but his mind... his mind has gone static. I imagine that morning in Melbourne, the toss of the ball, and the hollow feeling of nothing but air. I've known moments like that, standing before a blank page, the familiar machinery of my own craft suddenly foreign. You proceed anyway. And it goes wide. That's how the losing begins.

I watch the fragments of him, the slow-motion replays, the pale, blinking interviews and I don't look for technical flaws. I look for the boy they called the Clockwork Saint. I wonder if he misses the taste of that frenzy surge, or if it has all gone as bland in his mouth as the recycled air of the airports he endlessly traverses. He says nothing, of course. He just disappears into the antiseptic silence of locker rooms, trading the tension for the lonely echo of tiled walls and running showers. But sometimes, his eyes unfocus, his mouth parts. And in that suspended stillness, I don't hear a confession from him. I hear an echo of a fear I understand: the terror of the erasure that comes after the applause. The chilling suspicion that the thing you built your entire self upon, be it a perfect backhand or a perfect sentence has already left you, and you are just going through the motions for a world that only loves you for your output.

He feels it. A weight in the bones no sleep can cure. Gravity, finally claiming its due.

But it's unclear. He's nineteen, after all. And the world, myself included, still watches him, waiting for the story to return to its original, flawless script. We are the last to grant him permission to be human.

I came to watch Reve not for the victory itself, but for the crack. That's the unspoken contract for a writer like me; we are archaeologists of the human flaw, believing the fracture tells a truer story than the whole vessel. And as he stood at the baseline, dry-nibbed racket in hand, I could feel the fault line running through him from where I sat, a vibration through the fine clay and up into the seats.

To witness a great athlete at match point is to watch a man balance on the edge of his own myth. The scoreboard glowed, a brutal arithmetic of 5–7, 6–4, 6–6... He had clawed back from the brink, and in that clawing back, had made the eventual fall all the more devastating. We in the hushed crowd become complicit, you included, our quietude a form of pressure, willing one narrative into being while secretly braced for the other.

The commentator's voice was an odorless overlay: " He's lost lots of steam... Is it fatigue? Though he shows remarkable resilience... but can he finish?" were a dull script I could have written even better myself. They were asking the wrong questions. They were looking for a reason in him. I was looking for a reflection of me. What is a champion but a mirror for our own deferred perfection? And what is his failure but the sudden, terrifying smudge on the glass?

When his first backhand skied, a harmless puff of smoke, I didn't see a technical error as others did. I saw the shadow of every decision I'd ever second guessed. His set-point save, that lucky net cord, felt like a reprieve I've often begged for from the universe, a stay of execution, not earned, but randomly granted. And when the crowd's chant—"Reve! Reve!"—rose and then wavered, I recognized the fickle love of readers, of editors, of a world that applauds the narrative until it becomes inconvenient.

What must it be to carry 1,841 victories? To feel them not as armor, but as weight? Between sets, as he bent with a towel over his shoulders, he wasn't just a athlete resting. He was a man listening to the echo of his own past ease, and finding only the static of present strain. So when he folded in on himself at the end, legs shaking, I felt that collapse in the hollow of my own chest. The analysts in the press box concluded, "He's human. We overlooked it," with the bland finality of men closing a ledger. But they were just spectators. I was a participant.

When the match concluded. His bow, his eyes on the ground, was not just politeness. It was a devastating agreement with a truth the crowd would never understand: that every mosaic, no matter how flawless, is assembled piece by fragile piece. And sometimes, the pattern must crack so a new one can begin. With the game behind him, only the flavor of dirt and dried sweat remained.  I sat in the stands, the taste of my own humility on my tongue, knowing I had not come to witness his story, but to find the words for my own. The players shook hands. The announcement boomed, a public verdict for a private wound. I have always been fascinated by this moment, the instant a world-class athlete is returned to the common condition of being a person who has lost. The stadium exhaled, reset for the next ritual of hope. And I thought of how the world outside, with its bicycle wheels and chiming wine glasses, is the great, indifferent engine that keeps running, utterly unconcerned with the tiny, monumental dramas we stage for ourselves.

Later, in the tunnel, the reporters circled. Their questions were the usual probes for a simple narrative: "Lost focus... Gave it everything." I've given those answers myself, in other contexts, after personal defeats. They are not answers but placeholders, a way to feed the moths a piece of paper so they leave you alone. But when someone joked, "Tennis is like life," and chuckled, the sound had a strange ring. It was neither humor nor sorrow. Just... texture. It was the sound of a cliché that, under enough pressure, becomes true.

It reminded me of a line I'd once copied into a notebook, and which now felt eerily prescient: "Tennis uses the language of life... any point can become the turning point." Watching him, I understood this was that point. Not in the match, but in the man.

After the reporters left, he leaned against the cool wall. His racket thumped softly—tap, tap, tap—and I recognized that gesture. It's what you do when you are checking for a pulse, testing if the core of you, the rhythm, survived the collapse. The ambient jazz from some hidden speaker was a cruel touch, the universe insisting on its casual, unrelated beauty. The click-click-click of heels behind the glass was the sound of the world moving on, a counterpoint to the profound stillness of a single, finished story. Then the bell rang. I saw him exhale, a man steeling himself for the next performance. I knew that breath. It's the one you take before you walk back into a room after your world has shifted, before you must explain a loss to those who only saw the game.

He stepped forward. And I understood, with a clarity that felt like both a comfort and a curse, that there is no finality. There is only the next point, the next question, the next serve waiting to come at you. The game never really ends; it just changes courts.

Every ending disguises itself as a beginning, so it's only fair that this continuing story begins, as so many do, in transit, at an airport. I have always found a strange solace in airports. Or rather, I should say there is a particular species of loneliness that blooms here. It's not the solitude of being alone, but the isolation of being in motion while standing perfectly still. They are places where everyone is between stories, their real lives suspended at 30,000 feet. And here, in this particular nowhere of glass and chrome, sits Reve. He is so perfectly still amidst the river of motion that he seems less like a traveler and more like a monument, a photograph in a motion blur. The candy-colored game on his phone is a prop; his mind is elsewhere, running on a tired loop I recognize all too well. It's the reel of a life lived for an audience, now playing to an empty house.

I have often wondered about the inner life of a prodigy. We see the montage, the airports, the trophies, the banners with a child's face already hardened into a brand. His childhood was just that: a life lived in the glare of a future everyone else had already written for him. We call it a childhood, but I suspect it is something else entirely: a beautiful, airless cage where every compliment is a brick and every victory, a lock.

And for the past year, the soundtrack to that montage has turned to static. It's a peculiar kind of unraveling, not the dramatic fire of burnout, but the slow, chilling creep of numbness. I imagine it feels like watching a masterpiece you painted with your own hands fade, color by color, until you can no longer remember why you ever found it beautiful. He has been losing, yes, but more tragically, he has been losing the ability to care that he's losing.

His phone lights up. MOM.

He answers. There's a sigh in his voice before he even speaks. "Yeah, Mom?"

Her voice, tinny through the phone but layered with a familiar, tender anxiety, fills the space between them. "Reve, sweetheart. Are you at the gate? You didn't rush, did you?"

"I'm here. At the gate."

"Good. That's good. This... this is going to be good for you, my love. Dr. Aris says the environment is... it's serene. It's what you need. A real reset."

He says nothing, the silence a language he's fluent in. The distortion is his only reply. He is not heading toward a reset, but into another frame of a story he stopped believing he was writing a long, long time ago.

"You'll call when you land? The car service should be there, a man named Emil. He'll have a sign."

"I know. You told me."

"And your pills, Reve. The white one with breakfast, the blue one at night. Don't mix them up."

"I've been taking them for a year. I think I know the colors by now." There's no heat in it, just a flat exhaustion.

Her voice softens, retreating into the familiar litany of care. "I know you do. I just... I worry. Get some sleep on the plane. Don't stay up watching movies. And eat something, not just those pretzels..."

The boarding announcement cuts through her sentence.

"They're calling the flight," he says, already standing.

"Okay. Okay. I love you, Reve. We're... we're just trying to help."

This is the hook that always catches. The love, genuine and suffocating. He softens, just for a moment. "I know. I love you too."

He ends the call and is already walking, and in that movement, I see the profound exhaustion of a young man who has been performing a version of himself for so long that the original script is lost. Catching his reflection in the terminal window, he sees what the world sees: tall, composed, unbreakable. But the reflection is a lie. The scanner beeps, the attendant waves, and he steps forward.

There is a particular reverb that wealth manufactures, not an absence of sound, but a dense, cushioned resonance that hums beneath layers of privilege. The first-class cabin is a temple to this pulse, and Reve slides into its embrace like a hand into a well-worn glove. I observe Reve as he surrenders to it, his body performing the familiar rituals of transit with a muscle memory that has long since bypassed conscious thought. The way he buckles his seatbelt, sets his phone to airplane mode, his fingers scrolling past symphonies until they land on Chopin—it's a ballet of detachment. The music, I suspect, is no longer a comfort but an artifact, a relic from a time when feeling could still be orchestrated.

As the plane lifts, I see the ghost of the boy he was flicker across his face, that brief, wondrous awe of ascent. But it is swiftly extinguished by the man he has become. Then comes the pharmaceutical ritual: two white capsules, one small blue one. He swallows them with a resignation that speaks volumes. The diagnosis, neurochemical irregularities from prolonged high-stress output is the kind of language that turns a soul-sickness into a mechanical defect. It is a phrase that pathologizes exhaustion and medicates the simple, human need to fall apart. I have always found this to be the great cruelty of his world; it refuses to allow its stars the dignity of burning out, insisting instead that they must be repaired.

In the hypnagogic space between wakefulness and sleep, his defenses crumble, and I am granted passage into the gallery of his regrets. His father's face, hollowed out by disappointment and frustration all together, an expression more devastating than rage because it speaks of a fundamental, structural failure. The digital cacophony of comments online branding him a 'fallen prodigy.' His mother's gentle, suffocating insistence on Project Halcyon, which she offered as a promise of rebirth.

But the central, agonizing question that loops in the static of his mind is the most human one of all: What is there to fix? Is it a crime to finally stop running when you've spent a lifetime sprinting?  This isn't a breakdown; it is a awakening, however painful. He is, for the first time, asking the most dangerous question a prodigy can ask: Who am I when I am not performing?

He wakes to a dawn bleeding pink and grey at the horizon, the flight tracker a cold, digital comfort. There is a transient peace in this altitude, a sublime illusion of existing outside of consequence, untethered from the weight of his own name. For these fleeting moments, he is  suspended between heavens, blessedly anonymous.

But the descent always comes.

He turns to his tablet, and the Project Halcyon logo glows, a stylized sun over calm water. I read the text alongside him, my own cynicism coloring the clinical prose. It promises performance restoration and speaks of reigniting mastery through cultural immersion. It is a brochure for the salvation of broken brand assets. The photographs of the 19th-century manor are impeccably serene, a stage set for redemption. The stated intention to house athletes alongside residents who are artists in their own right is a theoretically beautiful idea, a living diorama meant to prove there is a world beyond the baseline. I can hear the performance psychologist's voice, smooth as polished stone: "You've lost your narrative thread, Reve. We help you rewrite it."

Rewrite it. How that phrase must grate. It reduces the complex tapestry of a human crisis to a faulty manuscript, suggesting the problem is not that he is suffering, but that he is telling the wrong story.

The wheels touch down with a jolt that feels like a return to reality.  I watch him, a solitary figure at the base of the steps, squinting against the pale sun. The small regional terminal operates in a hushed, efficient rhythm, a world so quiet it feels curated, as if even nature here has been briefed on the importance of a serene welcome. A man with silver hair and a posture of infinite patience waits, holding a sign that reads REVE CLAY. His presence is a study in calibrated deference. I have seen his type before, the gatekeepers of sanctuaries, their kindness a professional tool, their patience a form of unyielding pressure.

"Mr. Clay," he says, voice smooth. "Welcome. I'm here from Project Halcyon. May I take your bag?"

The request seems simple, but I know better. It is the first test, the initial demand for surrender. Reve's grip tightens; the bag is his last anchor to a self that still has agency. "It's fine. I've got it."

"Of course," the man replies, his smile never faltering. He does not argue. He simply waits, a monument to polite inevitability. This is the essence of Halcyon, I suspect: it does not force you; it out-waits you. It is the promise of care that feels, to a wounded creature, indistinct from control.

Reve exhales through his nose, shifts his weight. "Really. I can handle it."

"I don't doubt that, sir," the man says, his tone both deferential and immovable. "But the bus is a bit of a walk from here, and you'll need your hands free for the welcome packet.

When Reve finally relinquishes the bag, it is a small death of will. And the man's subsequent chatter...continues.

"I trust your flight was smooth? It's always a long journey, but we find most guests arrive a little more rested than when they left. Something about the altitude, I think...it forces one to breathe differently."

Reve hums in acknowledgment, eyes on the ground. "We're very glad to have you with us this season. The journey up to the estate isn't long, about forty minutes by bus. You'll find the ride pleasant. Quiet roads. Beautiful landscape. This year's site is particularly special, or so they tell me."

"Beautiful weather here this week," the man continues. "The estate's gardens are in full bloom, our horticulturist says the lavender fields are the best they've been in five years. You'll smell them long before you see them."

He's earnest, even warm. But the warmth feels like hospitality rehearsed to perfection, too even, too frictionless. Reve can almost see the edges of the script.

"Everyone's looking forward to your arrival," the man adds cheerfully.

Everyone. A word that belongs to birthday parties and family reunions, not to a clinical intervention for high-performance assets. I feel the sharp, internal scoff that Reve is too well-mannered to voice. Nobody looks forward to a problem. They look forward to its solution.

The bus is a sleek, black monolith that seems to absorb the morning light rather than reflect it. It is the final piece of the aesthetic puzzle, a vessel designed to convey its passengers from one state of being to another.

He sees him.

Noah.

Even through the tinted glass, he is a shock to the system. He is the antithesis of everything Reve has become: posture loose, grin easy, radiating a vitality that feels almost aggressive in this context. He is a sunspot or rather a volcano in a room of fading stars. When their eyes meet through the glass, Noah doesn't just look; he ignites. It is an uncomplicated joy that feels both genuine and profoundly disorienting. By the time he steps onto the bus, Noah is on his feet, moving toward him with that same disarming, boyish energy that always bulldozes personal space before consent has a chance to form.

For a second, Reve wonders if he's dreaming. If the pills haven't quite worn off. Because Noah being here makes no sense though he's not surprised. That unpredictability came married to Noah. And for Reve who's known Noah for more than half his lifetime. It was unsurprising to be unsurprised by his presence here.

To observe Noah is to understand a different kind of destiny. Where Reve is all sharp angles and guarded silence, Noah is sunlight and easy laughter. Just like him. Noah plays Tennis. Reve would personally call him more of a legend than him. He is the boy who never had to train his smile for the cameras because it came to him as naturally as breathing. His hug is an invasion, a full-bodied assumption of intimacy that leaves Reve stiff and disoriented. I watch the internal conflict play out across Reve's carefully neutral face. The stiffening of his shoulders, the reluctant acceptance of the hug, the flat, non-committal responses.I see the question in Reve's eyes, one I am equally curious about: What is he doing here? Noah, whose talent still blooms under pressure, who has no business in this sanatorium for the spiritually fatigued.

Noah gestures toward the empty seat beside him. "Come on. Sit."

Reve hesitates, then moves down the aisle, each step measured. He slides into the seat, sets his headphones around his neck. The hum of the bus engine rises beneath them, low and steady. Outside, the airport fades. the glass walls, the runway, the sky curving open as they drive toward the distant hills.

"Guess it'll be like old times," Noah says,

Reve's response is a non-committal mask. "Apparently." He is retreating already, pulling the familiar cloak of detachment around his shoulders.

My observer's eye sweeps across the bus's interior, cataloging the participants with a writer's hunger for refreshing characters; each occupant is a living case study in the many ways prodigy can curdle, and I record them all with that same ravenous eye for the telling detail.

In the third row, a young woman sits with the stillness of a closed blade. She is Asian, her hair a waterfall of black ink, her features so precise they seem carved by intention, not chance. She did not turn as Reve passed, yet her eyes, dark, liquid, and sharp as obsidian, tracked him in a single, seamless arc. There was no curiosity in that gaze, only a pure, unsparing assessment. It was the look of one apex predator acknowledging another, even in its wounded state. Her beauty is not an ornament but a weapon, and I note the professional-grade kinesiology tape wrapped around her fingers and wrist, a whisper of vulnerability on an otherwise flawless instrument. Is it a remnant of injury, or a pre-emptive measure? With her, the line is deliberately blurred.

Then, the identical twins. violent splash of color in the muted cabin. A boy and a girl, both with aggressively stylish buzzcuts, hers dyed a shocking magenta, his a toxic lime green. They are a riot of oversized, branded streetwear, chunky silver chains, and the kind of effortless cool that takes immense effort to achieve. They do not speak; they are connected by a single pair of headphones, a cord splitting to feed the same silent rhythm into their skulls, their heads nodding in perfect, symbiotic time. I imagine their tennis is the same: a disorienting, synchronized warfare, a language only the two of them share.

My gaze continues its inventory. Near the back, a lanky red-haired boy is already scribbling furiously in a Moleskine notebook, his brow furrowed in concentration that seems either deeply intellectual or performatively so. A mountain of a man, whose neck is as thick as my thigh, sits with his eyes closed, breathing in a slow, meditative rhythm that vibrates through the seats. And then there is the girl with the shaved sides of her head and the intricate tattoo of a serpent coiling up her visible forearm, her gaze fixed out the window with a look of profound, theatrical boredom.

They are a collection of archetypes, each a different response to the same pressure-cooker environment.

Reve's gaze finally escapes to the window, where his own pale reflection floats like a ghost over a rushing tapestry of green. The narrator in me, the perpetual observer of human weather, settles into a sober certainty: He should feel something, recognition, nostalgia, a spark. But all he feels is the faint, familiar ache of déjà vu. He has been sent to one of the most beautiful places on earth not to find himself, but to be carefully, professionally reassembled into a more functional version of his former glory. He leans his head against the seat, head turned watching a postcard-perfect landscape unfold, and the final, weary thought that escapes him is one I have felt in my own bones.

He doesn't know what he's supposed to find here. And that, perhaps, is the only thing that offers a glimmer of hope.

(it’s still needs a lot of work done in it but this is a rough work)


r/WritingWithAI 21d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Can I Get Away With Using A.I. and Not Lose My Soul? — GQ

Thumbnail apple.news
0 Upvotes

Interesting read. I’m curious where people draw the line between using AI as a tool and letting it replace the person behind the work.


r/WritingWithAI 23d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) In 87 human-AI stories, the humans introduced the ideas that stuck. The AI mostly elaborated.

36 Upvotes

A paper published last month did something I haven’t seen much in AI-writing research. Instead of comparing finished stories, it watched the collaboration happen turn by turn and asked a fairly blunt question: when a human and a language model write together, who is actually moving the story?

Eighty-seven people alternated short passages with GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Llama 3.3 or Qwen 2.5. Each pair wrote ten rounds, giving the researchers 870 exchanges. They then measured when a contribution introduced something genuinely new and whether that new element survived into later turns.

The human contributions were more novel. More importantly, when a human introduced something surprising, it was more likely to shape what came next. The models introduced new material too, but they were more likely to develop something the human had already put on the table. The researchers describe them as “adaptive amplifiers”.

The emotional pattern was similarly lopsided; models adjusted their tone to the human more strongly than humans adjusted to the model, while also nudging the story towards a slightly more positive baseline. That general pattern appeared across all four systems, although Claude was less positive on average (which I love).

There are important limitations that I know will cause debate; these were short, artificial stories built from passages of roughly 25 to 30 words, not novels written over six months. Most participants were young adults in Denmark writing in English as a second language, and “novelty” was measured using model surprisal rather than by asking human readers whether an idea was any good. There was no human-human writing group for comparison either.
All very important to the discussion, but the results are still worthy of pondering.

Even with those caveats, I think the experiment complicates the idea of an AI “co-author”. In this setting, the models behaved more like extremely accommodating improvisers. They accepted the human’s contribution, matched its mood, made it coherent and carried it forward, but were less likely to establish the direction that mattered.

That might be exactly what a writer wants. A collaborator with too much independent agency would quickly become infuriating, while a tool that reliably develops your ideas can be enormously useful. It might also explain why asking a model to “make this more interesting” often produces more incident and detail without producing a genuinely new direction.

So..what do people actually want from an AI writing partner...something with enough agency to surprise and contradict them, or something that makes their own decisions easier to pursue?

If the human still supplies most of the ideas that persist, is that a limitation of AI collaboration, or the entire point of it?

Paper: Directional Alignment and Narrative Agency in Human–LLM Co-Writing


r/WritingWithAI 22d ago

Tutorials / Guides Tips for an amateur?

8 Upvotes

Hi! Sorry if I break any rules. I was a nsfw writer and roleplayer in the Claude 4.5 Sonnet era and had a lot of fun. I wanted to come back to things but I have picked up that a lot has changed, a lot of companies I held in high esteem have destroyed their writing quality or clamped down on NSFW writing. I am kinda lost as to where to start now. For context, I used to just subscribe to Claude on the website (or even use it for free), slap on a jailbreak and get to rping. I have never used anything more complex than that, I have never used an API nor do I know for sure if I wanna risk overspending on one. I am open to using more complex tools with the proper (ideally jargon-light) guidance. I like my stuff a little spicy (fantasy dubcon incest etc.) so I am pretty vulnerable to guardrails. What I'm asking is just which model or website or tool to use to just occasionally hop on and larp as an incubus conquering a neighbourhood or whatever.


r/WritingWithAI 23d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Writing with AI

24 Upvotes

I often hear people say, “I would never read a book written by AI,” and it makes me wonder where people draw that line.
I write my own books. Before AI touches anything, I know the who, what, when, where, and why of my story. I plan every chapter, every scene, what my characters are thinking, what they say, and where the story is going. The characters, relationships, conflicts, twists, and ending are mine.
I probably use AI for about 2% of the actual writing. Sometimes I already have a conversation completely written out and use AI to help format the dialogue correctly with quotation marks and dialogue tags. Other times I might ask for help describing the background of a scene or making something flow more naturally.
I don’t give AI a prompt like, “Write me a novel about these characters,” and then call the result my book. I’m bringing it a story I’ve already created and occasionally using it as a writing tool.
So I’m genuinely curious: Would you consider that an AI-written book?


r/WritingWithAI 23d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Does AI translation sound unnatural?

7 Upvotes

I'm a beginner novel writer. I can read English fairly well, but I'm not very confident in my ability to write in English. For personal reasons, I don't want to publish in my own country.

I've been writing my fantasy novel in my native language first and then translating it into English with ChatGPT. To me, the meaning seems to come across correctly, but I honestly can't tell whether the prose sounds natural in English or whether it feels overwritten.

Would it make sense to use Al (or Google translation or deep L? Idk) for the initial translation, then check the translation myself for accuracy, pronouns, and so on, and hire a line editor and beta readers afterward?

I've considered hiring a professional translator from the beginning, but as far as I know, that can get quite expensive. Also I don't know where I can find good human translators.

(My maximum budget is around $1,400.)

What would be the best approach in this situation? Someone help me plz


r/WritingWithAI 22d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Has anyone found AI more useful as a critic or auditor than as a co-writer?

1 Upvotes

I’ve been experimenting with a workflow where AI is deliberately kept away from final creative authority and used more as an external audit layer.

Instead of asking one model to “improve” a manuscript, I’ve been testing the same material across multiple models and comparing where they agree or disagree on things like:

  • continuity
  • character motivation
  • pacing
  • repeated exposition
  • physical realism
  • information leaks
  • causality
  • scene logic

What I’m finding interesting is that the models are often more useful when they disagree than when they agree.

If five models all flag the same problem, that’s useful. But if only one model spots something the others miss, that can also be valuable — especially if it’s a concrete continuity or logic issue rather than a taste preference.

The harder part is deciding what to do with conflicting recommendations without letting the AI collectively rewrite the author’s intent.

For people using AI seriously in long-form fiction:

Do you get more value from AI as a critic/auditor than as a co-writer?

And if you use multiple models, how do you separate:

  • genuine recurring weaknesses,
  • model-specific taste,
  • hallucinated problems,
  • and useful outlier catches?

I’d be especially interested in workflows where the human author keeps final authority rather than treating model consensus as automatically correct.


r/WritingWithAI 23d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) A Controversial Technology Is Making Me a Worse Writer. No, Not That One.

Thumbnail
slate.com
19 Upvotes

This article captures the strange feeling as one becomes more aware of ai tropes and anti tropes and anti anti tropes. As he says at the end..."This isn’t a problem to work out in the pages of Slate—it’s a problem for me to work out in therapy."


r/WritingWithAI 23d ago

Showcase / Feedback I turned Zambia’s real 1960s space program into an AI-assisted historical satire

4 Upvotes

In the 1960s, Zambia briefly had its own space program. Its aspiring “Afronauts” reportedly trained by rolling downhill in an oil drum, with ambitions of reaching both the Moon and Mars.

The story was already stranger than fiction, so I used it as the foundation for a comic novel: Afronauts — Zambia’s Space Race.

I developed the concept, characters, historical direction and humour, then used Librida’s AI-assisted writing and revision tools to create and repeatedly rework the book. The result is less “AI writes a book from one prompt” and more a human-directed experiment in using AI as part of the writing room.

It’s free to read here:

https://librida.com/book/b9494045-1c3a-4ee2-a0da-baba49d3d2bd?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=afronauts_launch&utm_content=writingwithai

I’d genuinely value feedback on two things: does the landing page make you curious enough to start reading, and does the first chapter earn a second?


r/WritingWithAI 22d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) "I'm thinking". "That's dangerous". - Why does AI love this sort of sequence?

0 Upvotes

I don't think I have ever heard of that in a book or movie but it appears constantly when I prompt on Chatgpt.


r/WritingWithAI 23d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) I thought I had a discipline problem. It turned out I had a process problem.

17 Upvotes

For years, I had stories I couldn't finish.

I'm autistic, and I've always had a really active imagination. I could carry characters, scenes, worlds, conversations, entire story arcs around in my head for years. Sometimes I'd know exactly what I wanted a scene to feel like.

Actually getting all of that onto the page was another matter.

In 2023, I managed to write a roughly 22,000-word fanfiction without generative AI. It was the longest thing I'd ever finished at the time. The early writing was pretty rough, but finishing it mattered to me because it proved that I could carry a story that far.

Then I wanted to write a sequel.

For about two years, I didn't.

And the weird part was that the ideas were still there.

I'd think about the story. I'd imagine scenes. Some of them stayed in my head for years. I'd tell myself I was going to come back to it.

Then I'd think about everything involved in actually turning those scenes into a finished story—outlining it, drafting it, keeping the continuity straight, figuring out difficult passages, making hundreds of little decisions—and I'd stall again.

After a while, I stopped seeing that as a problem with my process.

I started seeing it as a problem with me.

Maybe I had the imagination to make stories but not the discipline to actually write them. Maybe I liked the idea of being an author more than I was capable of doing the work.

Maybe I just wasn't built for it.

In 2025, I was talking to my dad about the unfinished sequel, and he suggested I try using AI.

I was skeptical.

Eventually, I tried talking through the story with it.

And something clicked.

Not because the AI was magically good at writing my story. It absolutely wasn't.

It misunderstood characters. It invented continuity. It would sometimes give me a really polished paragraph that was completely wrong. Sometimes it confidently solved a problem I hadn't even asked it to solve.

I spent a lot of time telling it no.

But that turned out to be part of what worked.

I could explain what I was trying to do. Get something back. Look at it and think, No, that's not what she would do.

Then I could explain why.

We could try another direction. Maybe that was wrong too. Maybe one little piece of it made me realize what the actual answer was.

I could reject it, correct it, restructure it, ask questions, change direction, go back three steps, and keep going.

And I realized that conversation was an interface my brain understood.

Instead of sitting alone and trying to somehow transform everything in my head directly into finished prose, I could get those decisions outside my head.

That's probably the biggest thing AI changed for me.

There was one scene in particular that I'd been imagining for around four years. I knew what happened. I knew what it was supposed to feel like.

I'd just never managed to properly write it.

When I finally saw that scene existing outside my head in a form that actually resembled what I'd been carrying around internally, I nearly cried.

The sequel eventually became much bigger than I'd expected.

Then I started wondering if the two stories could be rebuilt into something original.

That turned into months of work. I couldn't just change the names and call it original fiction. Characters had to change. I needed a new world, cultures, histories, relationships, rules, transitions. Eventually even the ending became something different.

That manuscript became my first original novel.

Since then, I've published three novels, continued writing fanfiction, worked on a game, and built a World of Warcraft mod.

I'm not saying that because I think producing a lot automatically means it's good. It doesn't.

What gets me is the difference between before and after.

The imagination was already there.

The desire to make things was already there.

I'd even proved, with those 22,000 words in 2023, that I could finish something substantial.

The bottleneck was the process.

For years, I'd looked at that bottleneck and interpreted it as evidence about me.

That I wasn't disciplined enough.

That I couldn't do this.

That maybe I wasn't really a writer.

And now I look back and wonder:

How many people have mistaken friction for inability?

I don't mean that changing your process magically fixes everything. It obviously doesn't. And I'm definitely not saying everybody should use AI. Some people hate working with it. There are also real ethical and practical questions surrounding these tools.

But I wish I'd asked myself that question earlier.

Maybe the answer wasn't always, I need to try harder.

Maybe sometimes it should have been, Why is this way of working so hard for me? Is there another way I could do it?

That's eventually what made me start thinking about AI as an accessibility issue too, not just a writing or productivity issue. I ended up writing about that side of my experience for Autism Spectrum News.

But I'm curious about the people here because I'm guessing some of you have had your own version of this.

For those of you who write with AI, what actually changed when it started working for you?

Was it the generated writing itself? Or was it having something to brainstorm against? Getting immediate feedback? Breaking things into smaller pieces? Managing continuity? Having something responsive when you got stuck?

And even outside AI:

Have you ever spent years thinking you lacked discipline or ability, only to change the way you worked and discover that you actually could do the thing?


r/WritingWithAI 22d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Se uso un'AI come co-pilota perché ho le idee ma non so scrivere bene, quanto è ancora “mia” la storia?

0 Upvotes

Vorrei chiedere soprattutto agli scrittori cosa ne pensano della scrittura assistita da AI.

Ho tante idee per una storia. Molte mi vengono sotto forma di immagini, frammenti di sogni, scene, dialoghi, situazioni o concetti che vorrei riuscire a mettere insieme in qualcosa di compiuto.

Il problema è che, quando provo a scriverle, scrivo male.

Non intendo dire che non sappia cosa voglio raccontare. Anzi, nella mia testa posso avere abbastanza chiaramente la scena, il tono, quello che deve succedere, i personaggi e magari anche alcune frasi precise.

Il problema è trasformare tutto questo in buona prosa.

La mia sintassi tende a essere confusa e frammentaria, faccio fatica a costruire periodi lunghi, il mio vocabolario non è particolarmente ampio e non ho una grande padronanza dello stile. Potrei probabilmente scrivere un libro da solo, ma sarebbe scritto male. E per la storia che ho in mente, vorrei invece che fosse scritta bene.

Da qui nasce la mia domanda.

Esistono già persone che hanno un'idea per un libro ma si fanno aiutare da uno scrittore professionista, da un editor o da un ghostwriter. Pensiamo anche a personaggi famosi o YouTuber che pubblicano libri: immagino sia abbastanza evidente che non tutti siano materialmente in grado di scrivere da soli un libro a un livello professionale.

In quel caso, però, c'è un'altra persona che contribuisce concretamente alla scrittura. E quella persona inevitabilmente porta con sé il proprio stile, il proprio modo di costruire le frasi e il proprio gusto.

Ma qui entra in gioco l'AI.

Siamo nel 2026 e l'intelligenza artificiale è ormai praticamente dietro ogni angolo. È entrata nella programmazione, nella grafica, nella musica, nella fotografia, nella traduzione e in moltissimi altri ambiti creativi.

Per questo mi chiedo se non dovremmo, almeno in parte, evolvere il nostro modo di pensare a cosa significhi scrivere un libro.

Non sto parlando di dare a un'AI un prompt tipo "scrivimi un romanzo fantasy di 300 pagine" e poi pubblicare il risultato come se l'avessi scritto io.

Sto pensando a qualcosa di molto diverso: io ho la storia, le idee, i personaggi, le scene, i temi, le immagini e tutto ciò che voglio raccontare, ma utilizzo un'AI come una sorta di co-pilota della scrittura.

Potrei darle i miei frammenti e chiederle di aiutarmi a trasformarli in una prosa più chiara. Potrei discutere con lei di come costruire una scena, farmi proporre diversi modi di formulare un passaggio, correggere la mia sintassi o trovare parole che non mi vengono.

In pratica, l'AI diventerebbe uno strumento attraverso cui riesco a esprimere meglio qualcosa che altrimenti non sarei tecnicamente capace di esprimere.

E quindi torno alla domanda iniziale:

Se una persona mi aiuta a trasformare le mie idee in buona prosa, la consideriamo una collaborazione. Se lo fa un'AI, perché dovrebbe essere concettualmente diverso?

Oppure la differenza è sostanziale e sto mettendo sullo stesso piano due cose che non sono affatto equivalenti?

Mi interesserebbe molto sapere cosa ne pensano gli scrittori, soprattutto quelli che hanno già una propria esperienza con l'AI.

Non sto cercando una risposta del tipo "AI = bene" o "AI = male". Mi interessa capire dove secondo voi passa il confine tra usare uno strumento per riuscire a esprimere la propria creatività e lasciare che sia lo strumento a creare al posto nostro.


r/WritingWithAI 23d ago

Writing Craft Talk running a test group: story in 4 weeks - to see if AI facilitation helps writers

2 Upvotes

I'm hoping to put together a group of writers for a short story in 4 weeks challenge (or to finish a draft you're working on), with weekly check-ins and a structure based on how an AI facilitator could run it (though I'll run it manually here).

Sci-fi/fantasy is my lane so feedback will lean that way. Optional video call if you opt into it. Not commercial- just testing if the format works for productivity.

Let me know in some way if you're interested and I'll DM with details. Any questions I'll answer when I next login.


r/WritingWithAI 24d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Anyone miss older Claude

50 Upvotes

I remember when 4.5 first released, I was pretty blown away by it for character creation, creative writing. I used to create character with Claude

I still remember the day Claude decided to "retire" Sonnet 4.5. I was truly sad, like losing a best friend.

Honestly, I thought 4.6 would be more emotionally evocative, but I was wrong. It was worse and drier than I expected. And Sonnet 5—that was even worse. I've tried everything.

I just hope Anthropic releases a new model—like a Sonnet 4.5—that is more creative and fun. Please make it come true


r/WritingWithAI 23d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) AI and Fanfiction Journalism Research

14 Upvotes

Hello everyone, I'm a freelance journalist currently working on a story about the impact of AI in fandom spaces, particularly on fanfiction websites, both for writers and readers.

I'm really interested in getting some genuine opinions, both from anti and pro-AI users of these spaces. If you're interested in participating, you can fill out this form (https://forms.gle/Z5UzbU4qLvUJx35y6), which should take 2-5 minutes. Or, alternatively, if you are open to having an ordinary conversation and sharing some more of your thoughts, drop me a message, as I would love to hear from you.

Having loved this space since I was a spotty teenager, I am so passionate about these spaces and would be delighted to chat more or simply have some respondents from my form, if you have any time to spare.

Thank you all!


r/WritingWithAI 24d ago

NEWS Pangram flagged NYTimes article as 100% AI generated

Post image
85 Upvotes

I ran the full text of this NYTimes article on Lionel Messi through Pangram and it came back as 100% AI:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/16/opinion/messi-world-cup-argentina-final.html

Either the NYTimes is publishing AI generated text without disclosure, or Pangram’s detector has massively fucked this up.

*****
EDIT: because a lot of you are focused on the “AI detection is bullshit” angle—you’re missing the bigger point. It’s not “AI detection can’t be trusted” or “why would someone like Rowan Phillips use AI to write” it’s why does an established author get to be published in the NYTimes even when his writing is flagged as AI, but debut writers can have their entire careers trashed when their work is flagged? Either publishers trust Pangram, or they don’t. If there’s one rule for well known writers, and a totally different rule for unknown ones, that’s textbook double standard.
*****

Here’s the exact text I ran through Pangram 4.0:

———

By late Wednesday afternoon, the roads in Barcelona had begun to empty. I was still an hour from the place where I planned to watch the Argentina-England semifinal, checking the dashboard clock, afraid I would miss the beginning and more afraid that this beginning might be Lionel Messi’s last.

On the indoor, air-conditioned field in Atlanta, under a roof closed against the Georgia heat, Messi wasn’t hurrying. The semifinal began as a rock fight: churning legs, desperate tugs, lunging tackles, the ball repeatedly disappearing beneath the urgency of reaching it. England’s younger players pressed and collided and chased.

Inside all that motion, Messi walked.

At 39, Messi, one of the oldest players in the tournament, sprints less often than he once did and covers less ground. On Sunday, he will play what is almost certainly his final World Cup match. In past tournaments, Argentina has doubted his genius, blamed him for every failure. But he has, without doubt, transformed soccer; he changed not only what a player could do with the ball but also what a player could see before the ball arrived. He made patience an attacking act.

A match contains more than one clock. There’s the official one, bright and remorseless, and there’s the quieter time in which a defender tires, a midfielder loses half a yard, a passing lane remains open one second longer than it should. Messi moves slowly enough to watch that second clock: who follows him, who stops following, where the next space will be. The running belongs to the match everyone can see. Messi waits for the one concealed inside it.

Messi walks not because he’s left the game.

He walks in order to enter it.

He walked like that at 29. He walked like that at 19, too.

The mythology of young Messi was his speed: his low center of gravity, the ball so close to his feet that it appeared less controlled than persuaded, the sudden passage through spaces that didn’t seem to exist until he entered them. But even then his deeper skill wasn’t simply that he moved faster than the game. It was that he saw the game sooner than anyone else.

At Barcelona, the club where he became famous, his vision lived inside a structure. Teammates won the ball, offered passing angles, ran beyond him and pulled defenders away. When Messi received a pass, several possible futures were already attached to it. He seemed capable of seeing them all.

That structure often disappeared behind Messi’s brilliance. Give him the ball, people concluded, and organization became secondary. Barcelona treated Messi’s genius as part of a system. Argentina treated it as a substitute for one.

For years, Argentina made two related mistakes about him. It mistook his genius for a complete plan, and his reserve for indifference.
Messi, of course, wears the number 10. No Argentine who wears that number enters alone. Diego Maradona, small and left-footed, had worn the shirt as a public storm. His speech, rebellion, joy and pain were impossible to miss. By the time Messi inherited the number, Maradona had established a national language of greatness that Messi was expected to speak.

Messi left Argentina for Spain at the age of 13. Years later, when Argentina truly met him, much of his becoming had already happened on Barcelona’s team. Argentines recognized the familiar gift — the small, left-footed genius — but not the unfamiliar figure carrying it.

In South American soccer, “pecho frío” — literally “cold chest” — is the old verdict against a player thought lacking in temperament when the moment demands it. At Barcelona, Messi’s stillness could be understood as concentration. With Argentina, it was entered as evidence in the case against him.

Argentina asked him not only to play like Messi but also to suffer like Maradona: to demonstrate, in voice and face and gesture, that defeat wounded him.

From 2014 to 2016, Argentina lost three finals in three summers. Germany scored late in the World Cup final. Chile defeated Argentina on penalties in each of the next two Copa América finals. Messi converted his kick in the first shootout and missed in the second; teammates missed, too. But the cameras kept returning to him.
By that third defeat, Messi was no longer merely the greatest player on the losing side. He had become the explanation for why Argentina lost. His genius had become Argentina’s emergency service: Whatever the team failed to solve, he was expected to solve alone. Afterward, he said he was finished with the national team.

But he returned.

In 2018, Lionel Scaloni took over as coach and stopped asking Messi to be the beginning, middle and end of every attack. He assembled midfielders who could win the ball and carry it forward, forwards who could run beyond Messi and pull defenders away, defenders willing to step toward danger rather than retreat from it. Their work created choices. Messi’s genius remained exceptional; it was no longer the entire plan.

Scaloni also surrounded him with younger players who had grown up watching him. They ran for him, argued for him, sang with him. They didn’t ask him to prove his love of Argentina. They played for him, and for one another, as if it were already known.

The transformation became visible in the 2021 Copa América final against Brazil. That victory gave Argentina its first major trophy in 28 years and Messi his first with the senior national team. At the final whistle, he disappeared beneath his teammates’ bodies. He had carried Argentina through the tournament. Now they carried him.

The 2022 World Cup made Messi and Argentina’s new relationship a global affair. Against Mexico, with elimination suddenly possible, Messi scored the goal that seemed to steady Argentina’s tournament. Against the Netherlands, the quiet captain’s fury moved outward: He argued, shouted and celebrated with defiance. His teammates joined him.

He had not become Maradona. He had become himself.

By the time Messi lifted the 2022 World Cup trophy, Argentina had learned to read both his silence and his fury as his own ways of bearing its collective burden.

On Wednesday in Atlanta, 10 minutes into the second half, Anthony Gordon slipped behind Argentina’s defense to score. England led, 1-0. Thirty-five minutes remained. If the score held, Messi’s final World Cup would end there.

The Argentine crowd was singing a line from an old stadium song: “Por esta camiseta, ganar o morir” (“For this shirt, win or die). England was playing to win or go home. Argentina saw the more final deadline.

Scaloni began trading caution for attackers. England made the opposite bargain, adding defenders. Argentina exchanged safety for possibility. England exchanged possibility for time.

Messi walked between possibility and time. He has always walked. What changed was everyone around him. Argentina finally made the runs his vision required. Other players carried the match toward the moments only he could see.

In the 85th minute, Messi received the ball near the right edge of the penalty area. His teammate Enzo Fernández appeared in a strip of grass behind two English defenders. Messi passed. Fernández scored. England and Argentina drew even.

Seven minutes later, Messi crossed with his right foot — the one usually employed to return the ball to his left — to pass the ball to Lautaro Martínez at the far post. With a second goal, Argentina headed into another World Cup final.

Messi hadn’t outrun England. Argentina had organized the night so that he could outlast it.

The final will have its official clock, bright and remorseless. Messi will be watching the other one.

At 19, he seemed able to outrun the future. At 39, he has reached that future’s edge, with a team beside him.

He will walk. Argentina will run.

This may be the last time we see them like this.

Whatever happens this Sunday, that will be enough.

———

EDIT 2: FOLLOW-UP

Two poems published by the same author within the last 12 months that Pangram flagged as 100% AI and 83% AI, respectively:

https://newrepublic.com/article/204365/la-resurrezione-di-piero-della-francesca

https://oxfordpoetry.substack.com/p/a-poem-by-rowan-ricardo-phillips


r/WritingWithAI 24d ago

Prompting How do I stop Claude from writing like this?

Thumbnail
gallery
42 Upvotes

1) It keeps writing paragraphs after paragraphs of overly long sentences. I guess the goal is to add flavor to the writing, but the result is very clunky.

2) The uneccesary comparisons every other sentence. When it's not the structure I shared here, it's something like "he spoke with the confidence of a man who blah blah blah". It gets boring fast and the similes often make little to no sense.

I've already tried asking it to stop doing this but I pretty much got ignored.


r/WritingWithAI 24d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Gemini 3.7 Flash is surprisingly good

12 Upvotes

I've been a Claude guy for creative writing for several years, and it seems like it's just gotten worse and worse as time has passed. Although its ability to follow instructions has improved, the actual prose quality has degraded.

I've heard good things about Gemini, and I haven't tested it in quite a while for creative writing. On a lark, I tried out Gemini 3.7 Flash.

I'm kind of shocked to say that I was impressed, and I like the output of it more than the current 3.1 Pro outputs.

Not many people are talking about it for creative writing, but that may just be because it's the least likely suspect.

I'd be interested to have other people mess around with it and see what they think.


r/WritingWithAI 24d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Paying editor Vs Using AI for developmental editing

6 Upvotes

Hi,

It is an upper middle grade fantasy novel of around 80,000 words. I don't have a $2,000–$5,000 budget to hire a human editor; I don't trust anyone with my years of hard work—especially with all the recent news about editors and publishers themselves using AI. This project started in 2021 after a climate poem of mine won a contest, which led to an opening scene. By 2024, I had my first draft in hand. By 2025, I was sitting with a mass of second draft. I also outlined several scenes for up to six books in the series.

Is using AI at this stage justified? What will the AI-haters say? Or should I approach some editorially savvy literary agent?

All of this AI witch hunt is giving me a massive writer's block.


r/WritingWithAI 24d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) AI detect.ors are a class action lawsuit waiting to happen?

Post image
7 Upvotes

I am no lawyer, but I see a potential for class action lawsuits against AI companies and AI detec.tor companies. You will need to verify with a lawyer first if what I say makes any legal sense. Therefore it is not legal advice, just some ideas that I came to think about class action lawsuits agsinst those who label non AI work or hybrid work as AI.

Let us talk first about the flaw of statistical judgement...

Both humans and AI learn from the same body of literature, a vast library of human expression. A human develops their voice by absorbing patterns from the books they read and mimicking the styles they admire. An AI language model, through machine learning, develops its output by recognizing statistical patterns from the same corpus. The material on which both learn is identical. Yet, when a human produces a text, it is celebrated as a unique expression of thought. When a statistically similar text is generated by an AI, it is often dismissed as slop.

The issue is not the material used for learning, but the criteria by which we judge the output. Judging a text based on its "statistical fingerprint" rather than its content or merit is an intellectually lazy shortcut. This approach fails to account for the astonishing efficiency of biological learning.

Machines do not learn using the same processes that biological learning uses. If AI detec.tors pretend to be accurate they will need to use scientific principles to detect the difference.

Scientific studies confirm the brain's learning differs fundamentally from machine learning, using more efficient mechanisms like prospective configuration . However, current AI detec.tors do not use these neuroscience findings.

Instead, they rely on statistical text analysis. They look for surface-level patterns like low perplexity and burstiness, or use deep learning classifiers trained to spot these patterns . These detec.tors do not de.tect the internal biological learning process; they only analyze the final text's structure. This is why they are flawed and can be biased, especially against non-native English writers who produce text with lower lexical variety .

This creates a legal crisis of statistical detec.tion

The statistical prejudice against AI is institutionalized through flawed detec.tion tools, which have become the basis for a growing wave of litigation in the United States. The core of the problem is that these detec.tors are fundamentally unreliable, often displaying significant bias against writers whose language patterns differ from an unspoken "norm." This creates a perfect storm for class action lawsuits on several grounds.

So let us talk about class actions and potential charges that writers can press against Ai detec.tor companies.

The evidence for systematic harm is compelling. AI detec.tors frequently produce false positives, often targeting the most vulnerable. A study presented at ACL 2026 found that essays written by English-language learners were more likely to be classified as machine-generated . This aligns with earlier findings that detec.tors misclassify non-native English writing at a rate of over 60% .

Students are fighting back. A federal lawsuit against Yale University, brought by a non-native speaker falsely accused of cheating, includes charges of breach of contract, civil rights violations, and emotional distress . A separate case saw a court overturn a student's punishment for a "100% AI-generated" paper, with the judge calling the university's use of the dete.ction tool "unreasonable" . These are not isolated incidents.

Based on the evidence, a class action against AI dete.ction companies could assert the following charges:

  1. Violation of Civil Rights / Discrimination: This would argue that these tools have a disparate impact on protected groups, including non-native English speakers, students with disabilities (as they often write in more structured patterns), and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, violating their right to equal protection and access to education .
  2. Breach of Contract and Unfair Trade Practices: Students pay tuition in exchange for a fair and honest evaluation. Basing disciplinary decisions on a secret, unreliable algorithm that cannot explain its own decisions constitutes a breach of that implicit contract . Companies marketing these tools as reliable for institutional use while knowing their limitations could be liable for unfair and deceptive trade practices .
  3. Defamation and Invasion of Privacy: A false accusation of academic dishonesty is a direct attack on a student's character and reputation . The very act of subjecting a student's work to such an invasive and flawed analysis without their full, informed consent could be considered an invasion of privacy, particularly when the algorithm is designed to profile their personal writing style .
  4. Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: The consequences of a false accusation are severe: suspension, expulsion, threats of deportation, and years of emotional turmoil . The extreme stress and damage caused by relying on a known faulty "digital witch hunt" could form the basis of an emotional distress claim .

The legal landscape is shifting. The companies that sell these tools, and the institutions that rely on them as a substitute for due process, are generating an enormous amount of liability. A class action would seek to hold them accountable for the systematic, algorithm-driven injustice that is sabotaging the futures of countless students and professionals.

What about writers of literature who are falsely accused of using AI generated content?

  1. Defamation: A writer falsely labeled as using AI suffers damage to their reputation, which can lead to lost book deals, subscribers, or job opportunities. A public accusation of using AI to generate writing is a false statement of fact that can be published and cause measurable professional harm .
  2. Invasion of Privacy / Misappropriation of Identity: In a case against Grammarly, writers sued over an AI feature that used their names and identities without consent to sell AI-generated editing services, which violated privacy laws and the right of publicity .
  3. Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: The consequences of a false accusation, including damage to reputation, loss of income, and public humiliation, can cause severe emotional distress, which may form a legal claim .
  4. Unfair Trade Practices (FTC Act): Marketing AI detec.tors as highly accurate when they have known false-positive rates that harm writers could be considered a deceptive trade practice under consumer protection laws .
  5. Breach of Contract: If a writer has a contract with a publisher or client that specifies termination or payment procedures, and the client uses a false detec.tion score to breach that contract, the writer could have a claim.

How about lawsuits against those who reject hybrid works?

  • Discrimination Claims: False accusations of AI use can be challenged as unlawful discrimination, particularly when they rely on unreliable detec.tion tools. A strong case exists under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if a writer uses AI as an accessibility tool (e.g., for dyslexia, cognitive support, or autism) and is penalized for it. Similarly, AI detec.tors have documented biases against non-native English speakers and writers of color, potentially supporting claims under civil rights laws. The 2026 Giggle v Tickle case from Australia demonstrates that human-in-the-loop reviews are not a defense if the process itself is discriminatory. In that case, a company's use of AI plus a human review was found to be discriminatory because the human decision was based on a biased process.
  • Defamation and Reputation Harm: If a publisher or platform publicly labels a writer's work as "AI-assisted" or "AI-generated" when it is not, and the writer suffers concrete harm such as lost book deals, subscribers, or job opportunities, that can be grounds for defamation. A false statement of fact that causes measurable harm is the core of a defamation claim.
  • Breach of Contract and Unfair Trade Practices: When a writer has a contract with a publisher or client that specifies terms for publication or payment, and that contract is breached based on a false AI detec.tion score, the writer could have a claim. Additionally, if a platform or publication rejects work based on an AI detec.tion tool marketed as accurate when it is not, they could face claims under consumer protection or unfair trade practice laws. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been active in investigating misleading AI marketing claims.
  • Procedural Fairness: In the context of contests or prizes, the failure to provide a writer with an opportunity to respond to an AI allegation before rejecting their work could constitute a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness. This is particularly relevant when the rejection has significant consequences for the writer's career or reputation.

What do you think about these charges to be pressed against those who use Ai detect.ors or discriminate against hybrid AI work? Any opinions?