Using AI as a reviewer to improve my writing

[Voboy]

Have you tried it?

No.

I have faith in my brain. My sentences say what I want them to say. When they don't? I change them until they do.

I have no idea why I would ever benefit from AI taking on that role. On the contrary: it would reduce the authenticity of my stories (something I care about quite a bit), it would make me a less attentive and more complacent writer, and it would probably reduce my critical thinking abilities.

I see no upside and plenty of downside.

My writing skills are MINE, not a computer's. I take pride in that. It's what makes me a writer: I do the writing. My stories come from nobody but me. I don't see why I'd want it any other way. When I can no longer do that? Then I'll stop writing.

I think the key to any creative endeavor is that the creator does the creating. Nobody (and nothing) else. I accept that others will disagree, and I guess that's fine. But if they can't express that disagreement (nor anything else) without a computer's help, then I don't value their opinion one bit. Because it's not theirs.

 

[Lifestyle66]

No.

I have faith in my brain. My sentences say what I want them to say. When they don't? I change them until they do.

I have no idea why I would ever benefit from AI taking on that role. On the contrary: it would reduce the authenticity of my stories (something I care about quite a bit), it would make me a less attentive and more complacent writer, and it would probably reduce my critical thinking abilities.

I see no upside and plenty of downside.

My writing skills are MINE, not a computer's. I take pride in that. It's what makes me a writer: I do the writing. My stories come from nobody but me. I don't see why I'd want it any other way. When I can no longer do that? Then I'll stop writing.

I think the key to any creative endeavor is that the creator does the creating. Nobody (and nothing) else. I accept that others will disagree, and I guess that's fine. But if they can't express that disagreement (nor anything else) without a computer's help, then I don't value their opinion one bit. Because it's not theirs.

All good points.

But how many of you who agree TAUGHT yourself how to write, with absolutely NO FEEDBACK from teachers, professors, editors, or beta-readers?

As I tried to point out, the AI (as I used it) gave me such constructive critique as I might get from a college professor. It effectively "graded" my submission as a "B" with written notes in red saying "a secondary character is one-dimensional and needed more explanation of his motives for agreeing to the wife's RAAC."

 

[Britva415]

just because it says it can't access the site doesn't mean it isn't accessing the site. This is likely one of the ring fences put up by the developers to try to prevent model poisoning. There will be massive ETL processes running in the background to feed the basilisk.

It can’t access the site. Whatever material ChatGPT was trained on, it happened in the past. The developers feed it new training material for each new version of ChatGPT, and newer Lit stories probably make up some of that material, but Chat GPT can’t just go browse the web.

 

[alohadave]

It can’t access the site. Whatever material ChatGPT was trained on, it happened in the past. The developers feed it new training material for each new version of ChatGPT, and newer Lit stories probably make up some of that material, but Chat GPT can’t just go browse the web.

Something that I think people don't understand is that training a model is very computationally intensive and is not done on the fly. The data used for a particular model is fixed in time.

They may capture data entered for use in future updates.

 

[XerXesXu]

It can’t access the site. Whatever material ChatGPT was trained on, it happened in the past. The developers feed it new training material for each new version of ChatGPT, and newer Lit stories probably make up some of that material, but Chat GPT can’t just go browse the web.

The LLM base model bots can trawl the site, with or without permission, but the user front end, ChatGpt etc, cannot.

 

[Britva415]

The LLM base model bots can trawl the site, with or without permission, but the user front end, ChatGpt etc, cannot.

The LLM base model behind ChatGPT isn’t the same one which is being updated by bots. Developers train the development version (copy, instance) of the LLM after it ingests new material, and release the trained version as an update to the live instance of ChatGPT, with a new version number.

It’s not a real-time process, it’s not even an “automated but delayed” process.

 

[XerXesXu]

The LLM base model behind ChatGPT isn’t the same one which is being updated by bots. Developers train the development version (copy, instance) of the LLM after it ingests new material, and release the trained version as an update to the live instance of ChatGPT, with a new version number.

It’s not a real-time process, it’s not even an “automated but delayed” process.

The base model is like a trained memory. It's frozen in time for the purpose of producing a useable front-end.

There's always a base model in training.

 

[Voboy]

All good points.

But how many of you who agree TAUGHT yourself how to write,

None, but that goes for every other creative endeavor too. Most of my own learning about how to use the English language came not from teachers, but from my own reading.

with absolutely NO FEEDBACK from teachers,

In all honesty, my ELA teachers had very little to teach me about creative writing. They all said as much, from an early age. I took what I could use and ignored the rest.

professors,

None. My university did not really believe in helping students learn to write; their position was that you ought to know it before you arrived.

editors,

As I've pointed out here before, I did work with an editor back when I was doing commercial erotica. She doubled as my publisher, so I took her suggestions because she was putting up money and, thus, taking on risk. The byline was mine, but the product was hers. We worked well together, and she liked me because I needed so little editing.

or beta-readers?

I don't use them. I did once, accidentally, and it was a strange experience for me. I did consider the suggestions, but only because the accidental beta-reader was a fellow writer who I respect. I didn't change anything, though.

As I tried to point out, the AI (as I used it) gave me such constructive critique as I might get from a college professor. It effectively "graded" my submission as a "B" with written notes in red saying "a secondary character is one-dimensional and needed more explanation of his motives for agreeing to the wife's RAAC."

I mean, that's cool and all. But could you not have summoned enough detachment to step back and do that process yourself? If not, that's intriguing to me; I can't really relate to that.

 

[ElectricBlue]

All good points.

But how many of you who agree TAUGHT yourself how to write, with absolutely NO FEEDBACK from teachers, professors, editors, or beta-readers?

I'm like @Voboy. Zero feedback from any teachers in terms of creative writing, except maybe in primary school. That hardly counts for erotica.

University taught (Arts Degree), but that was English Lit critique and history, not creative fiction. A year or two with two beta readers here on Literotica, but their input was more guidance, and just as often ignored. Decades as a business writer, but again, that's not creative, certainly not fiction (but does involve making a lot of shit up).

Did I ever set out to "teach myself to write?" No, I just started writing and learned as I went along.

I occasionally wonder what AI content might look like if I trained it only my own content, but I've not gone looking for a tool that does that. That would be interesting, I reckon, given how many themes and tropes are repeated.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Did I ever set out to "teach myself to write?" No, I just started writing and learned as I went along.

That's what I have done as well. I never took any creative writing courses and actually found high school writing in English to be tedious. But I started just over the last four plus years writing here and taking the feedback to realize what would have made a better story.

I don't consider it "teaching" myself. But I haven't just thrown shit against the wall to see what sticks. I've considered the comments and even the rating fluctuations, as well as the verbal comments from my wife (when she reads them) to adjust my writing the next story.

I don't claim to have some God-like prescience to know when I started what made a good story or believed I've covered all bases. I did learn that it was the subtle inputs from others which guided me to write somewhat better stories. So, I see the AI as yet another potential tool, like a faster/instantaneous beta-reader.

I might use it as a "wheel" to move me along to write a better story, while no allowing it to drive me. I think it's like recognizing that the wheel was not a bad invention. It just doesn't replace the lever for heavy lifting.

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

Do you publicly acknowledge the help this AI gives you, OP? Do the readers know they're reading something that's been approved by a computer?

Since I have not yet published a story with this kind of AI help, it has not yet been an issue.
But reading your post, I realized I should put it into a note about the story.
I will be curious if Laurel considers that as a reason to reject the story due to AI use.

But my intention was not to use AI to write a single better story, but to practice writing in general.
So the outcry about the lack of emotional depth has helped me starting to think about emotional depth. What is it, how do I convey it. Do I actually want it? So my test story was called "A whore for one evening". In that setting I did not want the protagonist to ponder her emotions all the time, but rather take her through the motions emotionless.

With AI I can streamline my writing process. E.g. with such a prompt:
"Read this erotic adult story. Focus on the character of X. Collect all statements about her character and summarize it. Is she portrayed consistently? Do you notice inner conflicts? How are they handled.?

And I must say AI gives me answers. They are like the general writing guidelines posted here and on other sites, but directly applied to my text.

 

[StillStunned]

But my intention was not to use AI to write a single better story, but to practice writing in general.
So the outcry about the lack of emotional depth has helped me starting to think about emotional depth. What is it, how do I convey it. Do I actually want it? So my test story was called "A whore for one evening". In that setting I did not want the protagonist to ponder her emotions all the time, but rather take her through the motions emotionless.

And this is one of the reasons why an AI review is pretty useless. Depth of character is really only necessary if that's what the story is about. Plenty of short stories work perfectly well without it. They might focus on a single moment's experience, or an event, or a location, and the character's reaction to it. And that's even without considering that erotica generally focuses on a sexual experience, not an emotional one.

Like someone mentioned upthread, ChatGPT is aping what it's read in other reviews, without considering whether any of the factors are relevant.

For instance, I wrote a story called Fairytale of New York. Only 1.8k words, with minimal dialogue, and that very sparse. And yet according to the comments it's by far the most profound story I've ever written. Would ChatGPT get that?

 

[Lifestyle66]

For instance, I wrote a story called Fairytale of New York. Only 1.8k words, with minimal dialogue, and that very sparse. And yet according to the comments it's by far the most profound story I've ever written. Would ChatGPT get that?

Try feeding your story to ChatGPT to find out what it says.

I receive comments from readers, critiques from beta-readers, and had editors provide guidance in the past. And I SOMETIMES even take their recommendations to improve a story. But I've received some which I found went far astray from what I intended.

As I said above, when used sparingly, the AI review appears to be a very fast TOOL to use among others.

 

[StillStunned]

Try feeding your story to ChatGPT to find out what it says.

No thanks. It's my story, and I'm not giving any tech companies permission to use it.

 

[Voboy]

Try feeding your story to ChatGPT to find out what it says.

Why would he?

He wrote the story. He knows it.

This is primarily what bugs me about you pro-AI people: you're selling yourself short. Everything AI can do, in terms of probing your story, evaluating your characters, or critiquing your style, is stuff you can already do yourself. Your brain is fully capable of all this; indeed, it evolved specifically TO do all these kinds of critical thinking. And you're not letting it.

You keep your brain strong and vital by using it. My overriding concern about tech in general, and certainly about AI for creative writing, is that it makes us underreliant on that marvelous thing we all have between our ears.

 

[Voboy]

So the outcry about the lack of emotional depth has helped me starting to think about emotional depth. What is it, how do I convey it. Do I actually want it?

My advice: keep thinking about it. Then use those thoughts (NOT AI's "thoughts") to improve your writing.

Your thoughts about "emotional depth" are likely to lead you to a different place than mine would lead me, or Laurel's would lead her, or anyone else's would lead anyone else. That's the whole point: it's how you develop your own style. You appear to be starting from a premise that says "I need to improve." Maybe you don't. Maybe you just need to find your own voice.

Maybe you can do that with AI's help. CERTAINLY you can do that without AI's help. Your writing needs to be authentic and organic; it needs to be yours. AI will homogenize your writing and make it like all the other writing out there. I'm thoroughly mystified about why any writer would want that, but it's what Laurel is quite rightly fighting against.

Be different. There's nothing wrong with that. Find your own answers.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Why would he?

He wrote the story. He knows it.

This is primarily what bugs me about you pro-AI people: you're selling yourself short. Everything AI can do, in terms of probing your story, evaluating your characters, or critiquing your style, is stuff you can already do yourself. Your brain is fully capable of all this; indeed, it evolved specifically TO do all these kinds of critical thinking. And you're not letting it.

You keep your brain strong and vital by using it. My overriding concern about tech in general, and certainly about AI for creative writing, is that it makes us underreliant on that marvelous thing we all have between our ears.

I do use my brain. But as I've advised others in various threads, I found using a text-to-speech program a useful tool because the computer read audio tells my ear EXACTLY what I wrote, rather than my eye telling my brain what I think I wrote.

Just as computers give you a word-processor capability to write and revise stories faster than with a typewriter, I'm not opposed to checking out new tools. And in reading this thread and trying that "review a short story" request to ChatGPT, I found it a possibly useful tool. I won't take all of its suggestions. But as a beta-reader, it gave me faster feedback than any human could, similar to the word-processor instantly highlighting your spelling errors.

I am using my brain, by not assuming I already know everything and I'm perfect. I listen to others when they say, "You might try this to make it better." And in this case, it just happens to be a piece of tech.

EDIT: I wrote my own story. Now with the feedback, I'll think about adding another few hundred words of my own to write a better story.

 

[Voboy]

I am using my brain, by not assuming I already know everything and I'm perfect. I listen to others when they say, "You might try this to make it better." And in this case, it just happens to be a piece of tech.

This is what I'm suggesting to @Andreas_Kreuz a couple posts ago: maybe "making it better" isn't really making it better. "Perfection" is not the goal: creation is.

I'm getting nowhere, but I'm used to that. Good luck in your writing; try to make it your own. I can't see you doing that by relying on others (tech or people), but that's just me.

 

[MelissaBaby]

This is what I'm suggesting to @Andreas_Kreuz a couple posts ago: maybe "making it better" isn't really making it better. "Perfection" is not the goal: creation is.

I'm getting nowhere, but I'm used to that. Good luck in your writing; try to make it your own. I can't see you doing that by relying on others (tech or people), but that's just me.

It’s not just you. I basically agree with everything you’ve said in the thread.

 

[Bamagan]

I'm left wondering* how the people advocating AI analysis feel about horoscopes. Lots of people seem to believe that astrology is legit, and for those that don't, they ascribe the same techniques (or gimmicks) to its appeal as to AI: a suite of generalized assumptions and advice that can often be arranged to seem meaningful to someone's personal situation, because most people's situations share a lot of commonalities.

*That's a rhetorical device, to be honest. I'm not actually wondering. I don't really care.

 

[Plathfan]

Do you publicly acknowledge the help this AI gives you, OP?

Do you publicly acknowledge Microsoft for Word or Apple for the keyboard? What about your primary school grammar teacher?

 

[onehitwanda]

Do you publicly acknowledge Microsoft for Word or Apple for the keyboard? What about your primary school grammar teacher?

Neither Word nor Apple nor even Miss Trunchbull provide their utility from the wanton, large scale ingestion of all publicly accessible information, royalty free or no, acknowledged or no, licensed or no.

You're assembling a straw man here, and you're arguing purely from a desire to be stroppy. But then, that is what you do, and given the beliefs you claim to subscribe to I guess I shouldn't really be surprised.

I defer to @MelissaBaby

 

[AwkwardlySet]

There is a sort of false dichotomy going on in this thread. Many people are taking firm stances for or against when the reality is actually nuanced, as always. Unless some radical anti-AI law passes somehow, AI is here to stay, whether you like it or not. That's our reality and it's only going to become increasingly obvious. With time, people will start using it for more and more things. The AI itself is probably going to become more sophisticated over time, although the price for using the most advanced versions is certainly going to go up.

That being said, all those who are pro-using AI in writing, editing, and whatever else, should get real about AI's abilities to fulfill such tasks. Saying that you are getting an amazing story analysis by running it through ChatGPT only invites eye-rolls, not to mention claiming that AI can write well.
But also dismissing its ability to give any insight whatsoever, regardless of the (mimicking) way the AI works, is a stubborn approach. You can't know that before at least analyzing its abilities with a good number of concrete examples, or unless you are basing it on some specific study or research where AI's abilities were tested and it was somehow proven that AI analysis results in pure garbage. I see both of these extreme stances as emotional and irrational.

If you want to give it a go with AI, at least learn more about its abilities and test them before flatly accepting whatever result the AI gives you. Also, you need to accept that such prompts might result in AI using your story for training.
The same goes for all those claiming that AI can only produce pure nonsense when it comes to writing or analyzing a story.
Of course, it all comes down to personal preference in these things. Personally, I don't need AI to write or analyze my stories. That's my choice. But I also refrain from claiming that AI is just a parrot spewing nonsense. Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but we certainly can't know that with any amount of certainty. We already know that there are acclaimed authors who used AI to write small parts of their novels and maybe search for some ideas. AI's ability in this regard isn't zero, that much is obvious. It's not high either - that much is also quite obvious.
There is likely some difference when using different AI models.
Either way, beyond those basic assessments about AI's ability, we simply don't know.

 

[Voboy]

You're assembling a straw man here, and you're arguing purely from a desire to be stroppy. But then, that is what you do

There are reasons I don't bother replying to that particular poster; this is the main one.

 

[onehitwanda]

There are reasons I don't bother replying to that particular poster; this is the main one.

Oh, I'm done with them. But then I am predictable, after all, a simple automaton who picks from a list of predefined responses much like any good NPC would.