Using AI as a reviewer to improve my writing

[Plathfan]

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.

OP, imagine someone offering you a flower on the street, but you're warned not to accept it. Instead, you're told to go to a greenhouse, buy seeds, grow the flower in your garden, only so you can pluck it, rush to the nearest brothel, and hand it out to the patrons.

Why do those who loudly claim confidence in their craft and profess disdain for AI rail against it so vehemently in every discussion? I don’t take part in threads that don’t interest me, so why do they? What threat could a silly machine pose? Is it because, deep down, they know their adoring audience is largely composed of silver-haired pensioners wasting their days consuming smut—an audience AI could win over in the future?

From a reader’s perspective, a writer is someone whose work they’ve sampled and eagerly seek more of (the predictability gear is already in motion, lol). Don't ask me how many writers I've seen here.

Anything that helps in crafting a better piece of work is sacred!

Any advice from a machine is better than that of a muppet with an agenda.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

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

ULA-industries L-1000.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

And the discussion of AI goes on to infinity and beyond.

 

[AlexBailey]

Me:
Write a response to the post below from an online forum discussion about using AI to provide helpful feedback for erotic fiction writers in the rhetorical style of Mark Twain.

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.

ChatGPT:

Well now, ain’t this a spirited discussion, chock full of sound and fury, like a steamboat hollering down the Mississippi at high tide. And here you are, trying to part the waters with a well-meaning dose of common sense. Let me see if I can’t bring my little paddle to your boat.


The notion you’ve laid bare—that folks on either shore are planting their flags too deep in the mud—strikes me as right on the money. Human nature has a curious knack for splitting itself into camps, pitching tents on one extreme or t’other, and swearing the middle ground ain’t nothing but a swamp. Here, we’ve got one tribe treating AI like it’s the ghost of Shakespeare come back to offer personal tutoring, and the other acting like it’s nothing but a tin can tied to the tail of modern creativity.


But you, my dear peacemaker, are wise to suggest we stop hollering long enough to see the thing for what it is: a tool. Like a pickaxe or a printing press, it don’t carry any moral weight ‘til a human lays their hands on it. Could AI cough up a passable critique of an erotic tale? Well, if it’s fed enough romance novels and a pinch of tact, I reckon it could manage something better than pure drivel. But you’re right—it’ll be no more divine than the sum of its training, and no less flawed than the biases it’s soaked up along the way.


Now, to the skeptics: Sure, you can claim AI’s got all the literary wit of a parrot, but even a parrot’s squawk can mimic a melody if you tune your ear to it. AI might not know the ache of a lover’s quarrel or the thrill of a forbidden kiss, but it can sure shuffle through a million examples of how others have tried to describe those things and give you something resembling an educated guess.


And to the enthusiasts: Beware of falling in love with a tool’s potential before testing its mettle. A spade can dig you a fine hole, but it won’t plant your garden for you. AI’s advice, however clever it sounds, still needs your own wisdom to sift the gold from the gravel.


In sum, let’s not make this newfangled contraption a false idol nor a scapegoat for our fears. It’s just a thing—a clever thing, perhaps, but still a thing. The real question isn’t what it can do, but what you can do with it. And if it’s the kind of insight that’ll spice up your tales of moonlit trysts and sultry sighs, then by all means, dip your quill in that inkwell and see what flows. But don’t expect it to write the human soul into the story—that’s still your job, friend. Always was, always will be.

 

[Voboy]

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.

As long as that list includes the word "stroppy," I'll keep reading you.

 

[Plathfan]

As long as that list includes the word "stroppy," I'll keep reading you.

Since you can't reply...

From a reader’s perspective, a writer is someone whose work they’ve sampled and eagerly seek more of. Don't ask me how many writers I've seen here.

 

[Voboy]

Since you can't reply...

It's not that I "can't," lol. You're just not the kind of interlocutor I seek here.

I'm sure that doesn't bother you one bit, so.

 

[AlexBailey]

One more:


Me:
Create a response to the same form post in the rhetorical style with social observations and commentary typical of Rodney Dangerfield.

ChatGPT:

Alright, let me tell ya, AI and writing? Now that’s a relationship with no respect, no respect at all! Some folks are saying AI’s gonna be the next Hemingway. Hemingway? This thing couldn’t write a grocery list without looking like it plagiarized a fortune cookie! But hey, I get it—it’s new, it’s shiny, and it talks back without asking for a raise. My mother-in-law’s jealous already!


Now, some people think AI’s the answer to everything. “Oh, it’ll analyze your story, give you feedback, polish it up.” Yeah, sure. It’s like asking your plumber to critique your stand-up routine. “You’ve got leaks in the second act!” And then there are the haters. “AI’s garbage, it’s useless.” Useless? Come on, even a broken clock is right twice a day! AI might not know passion, but it sure knows a thesaurus. You ever get feedback that says your steamy love scene needs more “juxtaposition”? That’s AI for ya!


But here’s the real kicker: everyone’s arguing like it’s life or death. Folks, it’s a tool, not the cure for baldness. You use it, you toss it, whatever works for ya. Just don’t let it steal your thunder. Writers got feelings, you know? AI? It’s got algorithms! What’s it gonna say to you after a tough day? “Sorry, I ran out of tokens to validate your insecurities”?


And let’s not even get started on AI “learning” from your stories. My stories are already getting stolen by my cousin Lou for his fishing blog—now I gotta worry about Skynet writing Fifty Shades of Beige based on my notes? I tell ya, no respect!


So here’s the deal, folks: use AI if it helps, ignore it if it doesn’t, but don’t lose sleep over it. The human heart, the human struggle—that’s where the real stories come from. AI can analyze your plot, but it can’t break your heart. That’s your ex’s job!

 

[Lifestyle66]

Me:
Write a response to the post below from an online forum discussion about using AI to provide helpful feedback for erotic fiction writers in the rhetorical style of Mark Twain.




ChatGPT:
Well now, ain’t this a spirited discussion, chock full of sound and fury, like a steamboat hollering down the Mississippi at high tide. And here you are, trying to part the waters with a well-meaning dose of common sense. Let me see if I can’t bring my little paddle to your boat.


The notion you’ve laid bare—that folks on either shore are planting their flags too deep in the mud—strikes me as right on the money. Human nature has a curious knack for splitting itself into camps, pitching tents on one extreme or t’other, and swearing the middle ground ain’t nothing but a swamp. Here, we’ve got one tribe treating AI like it’s the ghost of Shakespeare come back to offer personal tutoring, and the other acting like it’s nothing but a tin can tied to the tail of modern creativity.


But you, my dear peacemaker, are wise to suggest we stop hollering long enough to see the thing for what it is: a tool. Like a pickaxe or a printing press, it don’t carry any moral weight ‘til a human lays their hands on it. Could AI cough up a passable critique of an erotic tale? Well, if it’s fed enough romance novels and a pinch of tact, I reckon it could manage something better than pure drivel. But you’re right—it’ll be no more divine than the sum of its training, and no less flawed than the biases it’s soaked up along the way.


Now, to the skeptics: Sure, you can claim AI’s got all the literary wit of a parrot, but even a parrot’s squawk can mimic a melody if you tune your ear to it. AI might not know the ache of a lover’s quarrel or the thrill of a forbidden kiss, but it can sure shuffle through a million examples of how others have tried to describe those things and give you something resembling an educated guess.


And to the enthusiasts: Beware of falling in love with a tool’s potential before testing its mettle. A spade can dig you a fine hole, but it won’t plant your garden for you. AI’s advice, however clever it sounds, still needs your own wisdom to sift the gold from the gravel.


In sum, let’s not make this newfangled contraption a false idol nor a scapegoat for our fears. It’s just a thing—a clever thing, perhaps, but still a thing. The real question isn’t what it can do, but what you can do with it. And if it’s the kind of insight that’ll spice up your tales of moonlit trysts and sultry sighs, then by all means, dip your quill in that inkwell and see what flows. But don’t expect it to write the human soul into the story—that’s still your job, friend. Always was, always will be.

Me: I couldn't have said it better myself. LOL!

It's a tool. But just as when deciding to use a power saw instead of a hand saw, be careful and watch your fingers!

 

[Plathfan]

ChatGPT:
Alright, let me tell ya, AI and writing? Now that’s a relationship with no respect, no respect at all! Some folks are saying AI’s gonna be the next Hemingway. Hemingway? This thing couldn’t write a grocery list without looking like it plagiarized a fortune cookie! But hey, I get it—it’s new, it’s shiny, and it talks back without asking for a raise. My mother-in-law’s jealous already!

Why does your AI talk like a thug?

 

[AlexBailey]

Why does your AI talk like a thug?

Because I asked it to respond in the style of Rodney Dangerfield.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Because I asked it to respond in the style of Rodney Dangerfield.

He's apparently never heard of Rodney Dangerfield or any of his acts.

Maybe try Don Rickles or George Carlin.

 

[AlexBailey]

Me:
Respond to the same forum post with the style and insight typical of Sylvia Plath.

ChatGPT:
Ah, this thread—fractured voices, split along the seam of progress and tradition. It reminds me of staring into the cold, unblinking eye of a mirror, watching it reflect not just what is, but what could be. AI, they call it, artificial intelligence, as though slapping the word “intelligence” onto something lifeless might grant it a soul. But a machine has no blood, no marrow, no pulse to stain the page.


To those who exalt AI as some oracle of literary critique: Do you not see it is a hollow priest? It chants back the fragments of what it has been fed, unable to breathe the air of original thought. And yet, there’s a seduction to it, isn’t there? The idea that something clean, cold, and impartial might guide our messy, human instincts. We yearn for validation from the very thing that cannot comprehend the ache beneath our words.


And to those who dismiss it outright: Perhaps you are right to fear its sterility. But do not underestimate the utility of even a lifeless thing. A hammer cannot build a house on its own, but in the right hands, it can strike the first nail. AI will never feel the sharp sting of betrayal or the sweet, burning pull of desire, but it might whisper to you a pattern you hadn’t yet noticed, a loose thread begging to be tugged.


Still, the machine cannot know the weight of metaphor, the breathless agony of a story birthed from sleepless nights and splintered hearts. It cannot taste the salt of tears spilled in creation, nor feel the electric tremor of inspiration. It will never understand that writing is less a craft and more a crucible, melting us down to our rawest elements, then asking us to shape what remains.


In the end, the question is not whether AI can write or critique—it is whether we, as creators, will cede our vulnerability to its indifferent algorithms. Let it be a tool, if you must, but do not let it become the architect of your voice. Writing is, and has always been, an act of defiance against the silence of the void. No machine, no matter how “intelligent,” can fill that void with the scream of a human soul.

 

[StillStunned]

Hey everyone, remember when we got that warning about posting too many AI-generated pictures? Presumably that extends to AI-generated texts in posts as well.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Boring, bored, boredom, too much of nothing, not enough of something. I'll check back in a few hundred posts and see if this has become less or more of the word of the day and its incarnations to bore, bored, boring, and boredom.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Me:
Respond to the same forum post with the style and insight typical of Sylvia Plath.

ChatGPT:
Ah, this thread—...

In all three cases, the AI isn't really responding to @AwkwardlySet post with a point or counter-point but rather seems to be mimicking the post, reiterating the same points in the same order and changing the writing style.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Hey everyone, remember when we got that warning about posting too many AI-generated pictures? Presumably that extends to AI-generated texts in posts as well.

Somewhere Down Under, EB's chest swells with pride.

 

[AlexBailey]

In all three cases, the AI isn't really responding to @AwkwardlySet post with a point or counter-point but rather seems to be mimicking the post, reiterating the same points in the same order and changing the writing style.

Check my prompts.

I asked it to respond, not to contradict, not to agree, not to analyze…. I didn’t prompt it to format it as poetry nor in iambic pentameter. It would do all of those things as well based on whatever prompt it was given.

You could ask it to provide a response in the style of a skeptical college English professor who is resentful and hypercritical of AI writing.

————

I’m a fan of AI as an incredibly versatile and powerful tool but I am also dreading many of its effects.

It is an incredibly disruptive technology - a cat that cannot be put back in the bag.

You can’t stop it but you can put it to use in many ways that may help you. The more you understand what it can and cannot do the better prepared you can be for the changes to come.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

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.

 

[MillieDynamite]

 

[Lifestyle66]

Check my prompts.

I asked it to respond, not to contradict, not to agree, not to analyze…. I didn’t prompt it to format it as poetry nor in iambic pentameter. It would do all of those things as well based on whatever prompt it was given.

You could ask it to provide a response in the style of a skeptical college English professor who is resentful and hypercritical of AI writing.

————

I’m a fan of AI as an incredibly versatile and powerful tool but I am also dreading many of its effects.

It is an incredibly disruptive technology - a cat that cannot be put back in the bag.

You can’t stop it but you can put it to use in many ways that may help you. The more you understand what it can and cannot do the better prepared you can be for the changes to come.

True that you didn't ask it to contradict or analyze.

I think my point is that in responding, it's not adding any new thought. But ... maybe its mimicking many other forum posts in that regard. So, it does appear as "intelligent" as many others.

EDIT: I'm not really a fan of new tools, being old and set in my ways. But I occasionally clean off my workbench and realize I might work faster with a power screwdriver!

 

[AlexBailey]

In all three cases, the AI isn't really responding to @AwkwardlySet post with a point or counter-point but rather seems to be mimicking the post, reiterating the same points in the same order and changing the writing style.

Here’s a critical response. (It sounds like it may have been trained on some responses here)


Me:
Respond to the same forum post in the style of a college English professor who is resentful and hypercritical of AI and refuses to see any benefits of its use.


ChatGPT:
Ah, yet another love letter to the glowing false god of artificial intelligence, as though we haven’t already debased ourselves enough with this technological obsession. Let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: AI has no place—none whatsoever—in the realm of genuine writing, and the fact that we’re even having this conversation is a testament to how low we’ve set the bar for creativity in the digital age.


The premise that AI could somehow offer valuable feedback on writing is, frankly, laughable. A machine does not—and cannot—understand the very essence of what makes writing worthwhile. Writing is born from the human condition: the struggle, the yearning, the raw, imperfect attempt to make sense of existence. AI, by contrast, is nothing more than a soulless mimic. It processes words without meaning, regurgitates patterns without purpose, and pretends at insight with all the charm of a vacuum cleaner manual.


And yet, here we are, entertaining this ridiculous fantasy that AI could one day “analyze” stories or “assist” writers. Let me disabuse you of that notion right now: AI is not a collaborator. It is not a partner. It is a glorified parrot, squawking back at you the fragmented nonsense it’s cobbled together from stolen data. If you think it’s offering profound insights, I assure you, the only profundity is your willingness to mistake its formulaic output for anything resembling human thought.


But let’s be honest, this isn’t about improving writing. It’s about laziness, plain and simple. People want shortcuts. They want the glory of being called a writer without enduring the agony of the craft. AI is the perfect enabler for this: it promises all the output with none of the effort. But here’s the hard truth: real writing is not easy. It’s not clean. It’s not something you can outsource to a machine while you sip your coffee and scroll through social media.


And don’t get me started on the ethics of it all. Feeding your work into an AI system so it can “help” you is nothing short of intellectual prostitution. Who benefits? Certainly not you. Certainly not the other writers whose words were unceremoniously ingested by these systems without consent. No, the only winners here are the tech companies, fattening themselves off the carcass of human creativity while selling you the lie that AI can somehow “augment” your art.


So, no, I won’t concede a single point about AI’s supposed utility. It is a crutch for the unimaginative, a tool for the lazy, and a symptom of our society’s increasing inability to value depth and nuance. Writing is—and always will be—a human endeavor. It requires effort, emotion, and soul. If you can’t bring those to the table, then perhaps writing isn’t for you. But don’t expect a machine to fill in the gaps where your humanity ought to be.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Here’s a critical response. (It sounds like it may have been trained on some responses here)


Me:
Respond to the same forum post in the style of a college English professor who is resentful and hypercritical of AI and refuses to see any benefits of its use.


ChatGPT:
Ah, yet another love letter to the glowing false god of artificial intelligence, as though we haven’t already debased ourselves enough with this technological obsession. Let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: AI has no place—none whatsoever—in the realm of genuine writing, and the fact that we’re even having this conversation is a testament to how low we’ve set the bar for creativity in the digital age.


The premise that AI could somehow offer valuable feedback on writing is, frankly, laughable. A machine does not—and cannot—understand the very essence of what makes writing worthwhile. Writing is born from the human condition: the struggle, the yearning, the raw, imperfect attempt to make sense of existence. AI, by contrast, is nothing more than a soulless mimic. It processes words without meaning, regurgitates patterns without purpose, and pretends at insight with all the charm of a vacuum cleaner manual.


And yet, here we are, entertaining this ridiculous fantasy that AI could one day “analyze” stories or “assist” writers. Let me disabuse you of that notion right now: AI is not a collaborator. It is not a partner. It is a glorified parrot, squawking back at you the fragmented nonsense it’s cobbled together from stolen data. If you think it’s offering profound insights, I assure you, the only profundity is your willingness to mistake its formulaic output for anything resembling human thought.


But let’s be honest, this isn’t about improving writing. It’s about laziness, plain and simple. People want shortcuts. They want the glory of being called a writer without enduring the agony of the craft. AI is the perfect enabler for this: it promises all the output with none of the effort. But here’s the hard truth: real writing is not easy. It’s not clean. It’s not something you can outsource to a machine while you sip your coffee and scroll through social media.


And don’t get me started on the ethics of it all. Feeding your work into an AI system so it can “help” you is nothing short of intellectual prostitution. Who benefits? Certainly not you. Certainly not the other writers whose words were unceremoniously ingested by these systems without consent. No, the only winners here are the tech companies, fattening themselves off the carcass of human creativity while selling you the lie that AI can somehow “augment” your art.


So, no, I won’t concede a single point about AI’s supposed utility. It is a crutch for the unimaginative, a tool for the lazy, and a symptom of our society’s increasing inability to value depth and nuance. Writing is—and always will be—a human endeavor. It requires effort, emotion, and soul. If you can’t bring those to the table, then perhaps writing isn’t for you. But don’t expect a machine to fill in the gaps where your humanity ought to be.

Okay, nay-saying people of the forum;

Which of you WROTE THAT?

 

[Plathfan]

So, no, I won’t concede a single point about AI’s supposed utility. It is a crutch for the unimaginative, a tool for the lazy, and a symptom of our society’s increasing inability to value depth and nuance.

Great, don’t use it, and stop spamming us with it.

Muppets prattling on about humanity and depth... SMH.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

It's easy to recognize this as AI-written. The rule of three in some sentences is such a huge tell.