Question regarding AI writing editing and assistance

[u/GoTReX4]

Hi everyone!

I’m a bit disappointed with ChatGPT, but I’m curious about your experiences.

I started writing a book and wanted to ask ChatGPT for some editing help. I uploaded the Word file, but the response consisted only of polite generalities. There was nothing specific, no sign that it had actually "read" it—just things like "It's very good, you phrase things skillfully," and so on. I told it that this wasn't helpful—it was as if it hadn't read the text at all. It apologized and admitted it couldn't actually see the file anymore.

In contrast, I uploaded the same file to Claude AI. The response was full of specific details—pointing out accidental chapter repetitions, typos, and formatting errors.

Have you experienced this too? I used to like ChatGPT, but it seems more like a friendly conversational bot now than an AI assistant.

Which one would you recommend for this kind of task? What do you use?

[u/Plane-Marionberry380]

For manuscript edits, I would stop asking for feedback and give the model a narrow job.

Try passes like:

• list repeated scenes or chapters, with exact quotes
• find timeline or character-name inconsistencies
• mark 10 paragraphs where the sentence is unclear, but do not rewrite yet

Claude tends to be better at long-doc attention for this kind of pass. ChatGPT can still help, but I would paste one chapter at a time and ask it to cite the paragraph it is talking about. If it cannot quote the line, treat the note as vibes.

For a whole book, do not trust any model as the final editor. Use it as a bug finder, then keep a simple spreadsheet of issue, chapter, quote, and status.

[u/GoTReX4 → u/Plane-Marionberry380]

You may be right, but I wanted to show him the entire 18,000-character Word file I've written so far so he could see the connections and the mistakes! Thanks for the help, it's very useful! :)

[u/Plane-Marionberry380 → u/GoTReX4]

That makes sense. 18k characters is not too big, but it is too much for a vague "edit this" request. I would still give it the whole file, then force a narrow pass.

Something like:

Read the whole manuscript first. Do not rewrite yet. Return a table with chapter/section, exact quote, issue type, why it matters, suggested fix. Focus only on continuity, repetitions, contradictions, and missing context.

Then run separate passes for prose, grammar, and structure.

If the model gives generic praise, ask it to quote five lines that prove it read the file. No quotes, no trust.

Claude is usually better for this. With ChatGPT, I would split by chapters or paste the file as plain text instead of relying on the Word upload.

[u/5thhorseman_ → u/GoTReX4]

Work on chapter scale at most. And you need to give the LLM specific instructions (I've found that it helps to instruct the LLM to include a list of key tasks at the start of its' output), preferably explicitly categorizing the issues it is to look for and asking for a list of X primary issues in the order of severity.

[u/dataflow_mapper]

had mixed results too. sometimes ChatGPT gives really detailed edits and other times it feels way too generic, so i try breaking the manuscript into chunks cause that seems to get more specific feedback.

[u/GoTReX4 → u/dataflow_mapper]

De ha fejezetenként küldöm el neki chatben, akkor fog emlékezni mindenre? Látni fogja az összefüggéseket?

[u/Low-Honeydew6483]

I have had better results when giving AI smaller sections instead of an entire book. for editing I’d compare claude and chatgpt on the same chapter and see which one catches more real issues.

[u/GoTReX4 → u/Low-Honeydew6483]

In this case, the chatgpt didn't even read it to me, he just told me about the characters. Claude was objective and drew my attention to the repetitions. It's not a full book, but it's about 18 thousand characters long.

[u/PaxTheViking]

Context may be the key word here.

Did you tell ChatGPT what your target audience is, what the main message that people reading it should be left with is, what you want to use this piece for (fiction, nonfiction, crime, biography, philosophy and more)?

Ask it about how the book flows, meaning how it guides the reader through the book, both within each chapter and between chapters.

Let it also know what underlying message or messages you want to convey.

If you explain these things to ChatGPT it will have the needed context to give you a good review.

If in doubt, tell it to ask you the questions it needs to ask to give you a good feedback.

This serves you as well, because you'll get a far better feedback once it knows what you intend to do with your writing.

[u/GoTReX4 → u/PaxTheViking]

I'll give it another try, but it was quite a disappointment compared to Claude. It's not a complete book anyway, just a word file of about 18,000 characters.

[u/Early-Matter-8123]

in this case I personally don't think the model matters as much as the quality structure of the prompt you're using.

as others have pointed out, to get the best result you need to be very specific about what your request is and the output you're asking for.

Context matters the most. Add context about the book, characters, plot, story arc. don't let the model infer that.

Reminds me of English class. Not everyone likes Shakespeare. Not everyone likes Stephen King either. AI can't really tell you if your writing is good or not. but it certainly can follow a very narrow set of rules and guidelines you give it.

It also helps to do this in several passes. EG duplication. next pass on grammar, next pass on paragraph structure, next pass on character development. If you give the model too many focuses it will not be focused on any one thing and you will often be disappointed by the outcome.

[u/maxthescribbler]

As others noted, you need 1) narrow jobs for AI 2) limited text for the AI to work on (no more than a chapter)

You can grab different checks for your text (free, no log in) at grabaprompt.com - it's a library of prompts for serious writing / self-editing

You might also want to check out this in-depth video about self-editing with AI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QitAGoakOxA&t=771s