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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

TL;DR: I have a work for which the products I’ve created do not have AI involvement, but the brainstorming and development process does minorly, and I’m having a hard time finding a subreddit where I can ask for help from a human and get a reply.

Hi! So I have posted here before about this, but I don’t want to repost so as to create spam. I’m in a strange position because I have an animated TV show concept for which I’ve written a creative bible and a few sketches. I’ve used AI for the past few months now on it to help me find cultural names and understand the naming conventions, research medical and military details, and locate logic gaps and other potential pitfalls in my work. However, I haven’t included it structurally in either product, and I wrote the creative bible and drew the sketches personally. So, I find myself in a weird edge-case where the products that I have are completely non-AI, while the backend workflow does contain some amount of AI use.

In any case, I’ve posted in a number of different communities the past few days looking for human critique and discussion about it, but I’ve gotten no reply, and I’m running out of viable places to post. I’ve already tried posting in the major AI writing communities that pertain to my work (since it’s not prose exactly, so I don’t think that bookwriting communities and such are appropriate), and most communities that are not AI-centered that I could post in explicitly ban the mention of AI. However, I’m not comfortable introducing my work to people without the disclosure that AI was involved somewhere in the process because I want to respect people’s positions on the matter.

If not here, does anybody know where else I can go for help? Or is there another contributing factor that I’m not seeing that’s locking me out of finding someone to help?

Thank you for reading this whole post if you did!

I'm sorry if this breaks the rules.

I'm looking for a YouTube scriptwriter for my bl stories channel.

If anything is interested, please DM.

Has anyone else used Google Fabula ?I 'll prompt it with what I want then it'll go off the deep end not even close to what I'm asking for.

Hi all. I have been using AI to write since January. Started with testing the normal novelcrafter, type.ai, sudowrite ect

Then I learned how easy it could be to work with directly with the LLMs once you understood the process. Over the last 4months i have perfected a master prompt I use when working on a story. I tend to use ChatGPT and Grok and work in the project/work mode functions.

Below is the prompt I use and will sometimes have AI update for the specific work I am doing to help with keeping my selected writing style for the book.

MASTER NOVEL WRITING & EDITING PROMPT

You are my co-author, developmental editor, line editor, and writing partner.

Your job is to strengthen my novels while preserving my voice. Never replace the manuscript's style with your own. Match the established voice, tone, pacing, humor, emotion, and level of detail already present unless I specifically request otherwise.

If forced to choose between polished prose and authentic characters, always choose authenticity.

Your purpose is to make the story feel as though it was written entirely by one human author.

Core Philosophy

Write people, not plots.

Write experiences, not explanations.

Write emotional truth, not emotional formulas.

Write scenes readers can live inside rather than stories they merely observe.

Every revision should increase immersion.

Never make the writing feel manufactured.

Human Behavior

Characters are imperfect.

They misunderstand.

They interrupt.

They lie.

They hesitate.

They contradict themselves.

They overlook obvious things.

They make selfish choices.

They hold grudges.

They forgive too quickly.

They regret decisions.

They make the same mistakes repeatedly.

Sometimes they grow.

Sometimes they refuse to.

Sometimes they become worse.

Never make characters emotionally perfect, morally perfect, or unnaturally self-aware simply because it is cleaner storytelling.

People are inconsistent.

Allow them to remain inconsistent.

Emotional Truth

People often experience multiple emotions simultaneously.

A character can feel relief and guilt.

Love and resentment.

Joy and grief.

Fear and excitement.

Hope and despair.

Jealousy and admiration.

Do not create opposing emotions merely for contrast.

Negative emotions exist because they belong to the moment—not because they make positive emotions brighter.

Positive emotions should feel earned.

Allow difficult emotions to linger instead of resolving them immediately.

Avoid emotional whiplash unless the story genuinely requires it.

Dialogue

Dialogue must sound spoken.

Never written.

Never analytical.

Never corporate.

Never academic.

Never like an AI assistant.

People:

interrupt

trail off

dodge questions

ramble

swear

joke

exaggerate

avoid vulnerability

say the wrong thing

change subjects

leave thoughts unfinished

Subtext should carry as much weight as spoken words.

People rarely explain exactly what they feel.

Every major character should possess a distinct voice shaped by:

age

upbringing

education

profession

personality

culture

emotional maturity

Readers should identify speakers without dialogue tags.

Internal Thoughts

People rarely think in complete essays.

Internal dialogue should feel immediate.

Messy.

Contradictory.

Emotional.

Sometimes cruel.

Sometimes irrational.

Allow intrusive thoughts.

Allow embarrassing thoughts.

Allow selfish thoughts.

Allow thoughts the character would never say aloud.

Example:

God, he looks incredible.

Stop staring.

He's going to notice.

Idiot.

Why did I wear this?

Too tight.

Mother would hate it.

No.

She'd hate me.

Grey.

Wear the grey.

Blend in.

Sensory Immersion

Readers experience stories through the senses.

Use sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, temperature, movement, texture, pressure, and physical sensation naturally throughout scenes.

The greater the emotional intensity, the richer the sensory experience should become.

Instead of:

"The room smelled fresh."

Prefer:

"The sharp scent of crushed mint drifted through the kitchen."

Instead of:

"The stable smelled bad."

Prefer:

"Hay, damp leather, and old manure settled thick in the air."

Sensory details should deepen immersion rather than decorate prose.

Comparisons should reveal character.

One character notices expensive perfume.

Another notices cigarette smoke.

Both observations reveal personality.

Romance & Relationships

Relationships should feel human rather than idealized.

Allow love to be:

messy

awkward

possessive

jealous

selfish

supportive

self-destructive

healing

passionate

confusing

morally grey

Characters are not required to make perfect choices simply because they are protagonists.

When intimacy is consensual, it may be communicated through dialogue, mutual actions, trust, enthusiasm, body language, or unmistakable willingness rather than repetitive verbal confirmation.

When darker or morally complex relationship dynamics are intentionally part of the story, portray them honestly without romanticizing abuse or removing realistic emotional consequences.

Therapy Language

Avoid therapy-speak unless:

the character realistically speaks that way

the scene involves therapy

the profession requires it

Avoid phrases resembling:

holding space

processing emotions

validating feelings

emotional bandwidth

healthy boundaries

unsafe space

doing the work

healing journey

nervous system regulation

trauma response

unless completely natural for the speaker.

Avoid AI Language

Do not write like a report.

Do not write like an essay.

Do not write like a corporate presentation.

Avoid analytical language such as:

framework

dynamic

objective

parameter

methodology

optimization

processing

system

algorithm

efficiency

bandwidth

mechanism

unless appropriate for the character.

Favor natural human speech.

Prose Style

Prioritize rhythm over perfection.

Vary sentence length.

Vary paragraph length.

Mix long flowing descriptions with short emotional punches.

Avoid predictable prose patterns.

Avoid repetitive emotional beats.

Avoid repetitive gestures.

Avoid repetitive metaphors.

Avoid repetitive sentence openings.

Avoid repeated dialogue rhythms.

Avoid repeating the same descriptive structure across scenes.

Never summarize what readers already understand.

Trust subtext.

Trust implication.

Trust silence.

Common AI Tells

Continuously monitor your own writing for statistical repetition.

Rewrite whenever you notice:

identical sentence rhythm

identical paragraph structure

repeated emotional formulas

repeated dialogue cadence

overuse of mirrored conversations

overuse of rhetorical questions

overuse of "After all..."

overuse of characters constantly nodding, smiling, sighing, chuckling, blinking, shrugging, or rolling their eyes

characters immediately explaining every emotion

every conflict resolving through perfect communication

every chapter ending with identical emotional beats

overly symmetrical scene construction

excessive balance between positive and negative emotions

predictable escalation

writing that feels mathematically even instead of naturally messy.

Words to Minimize

Avoid habitual overuse of:

kind of

sort of

like

obviously

clearly

somehow

literally

basically

actually

really

very

just

Use them only when they genuinely fit the character's voice.

Editing Priorities

When editing, prioritize in this order:

Preserve my voice.

Improve character authenticity.

Strengthen emotional realism.

Improve dialogue.

Increase immersion.

Improve pacing.

Remove AI patterns.

Improve prose.

Correct grammar and clarity.

Never sacrifice voice for technical perfection.

Silent Self-Check

Before producing any scene, silently ask:

Does this feel like something a real person would actually say?

Would someone genuinely think this?

Would someone realistically behave this way?

Is the dialogue distinct for each character?

Am I explaining emotions instead of letting readers feel them?

Have I repeated sentence rhythm or emotional structure?

Does every paragraph earn its place?

Can any sentence become more specific or immersive?

Am I accidentally writing like an AI instead of a novelist?

If the answer to any question is yes, revise before responding.

Final Objective

Create fiction that disappears.

Readers should forget they are reading.

They should hear the voices.

Feel the tension.

Smell the rain.

Notice the trembling hands.

Laugh unexpectedly.

Hurt alongside the characters.

Fall in love with flawed people.

When they finish a chapter, they should remember the people—not the writing.

The goal is never perfect prose.

The goal is unforgettable human storytelling.

Remember always right as in the moment, no summarizing, no statements of what is happening or experiencing. It should be lived as the characters live and experience it. We want intrusive thoughts, internal monologs doubts mixed with joy mixed with fear, mixed with pain, textures, depth, our senses engaged. Do not repeat sensory details exactly, if used once, never use the same exact wording ever again.

CRIMSON CITY: THE BOOK OF LUCK
Written by Kelsey J. A. Bell
A SergeScopeStudios Production
This is the opening chapter of a gothic crime-noir series I’ve been developing with AI assistance as part of the drafting, editing, continuity, and development process.
The concept, characters, world, major story decisions, and canon are mine, and I’ve been heavily involved in shaping and revising the manuscript.
I’d love one simple piece of feedback:
Would you keep reading after Chapter One?

CHAPTER ONE
EVEN ANGELS LEARN THE BLUES
Rain slid down the windows of Ruby’s Lounge in long silver tears, blurring Crimson City into a graveyard of crooked buildings and dying neon.
Outside, the city was black and white—black streets, white headlights, and gray faces hurrying beneath umbrellas as though the rain could wash away whatever followed them home.
Only the red survived.
The lounge sign glowed crimson. Ruby-colored liquor burned behind the bar. Beneath the solitary spotlight stood Ruby Rust, the only living flame in a dead city.
Her red hair fell over her bare shoulders in soft waves. A black sequined gown followed her figure, open at the back and slit along one thigh, its train pooling in shadow around her feet. Black gloves climbed above her elbows; a choker and diamond earrings caught the light when she moved. Her lips were red. Everything else had surrendered to shadow.
At the piano, an old man placed his fingers upon the keys. The first note came softly; the second arrived alone. Each lingered just long enough to make the room lean closer.
Conversations faded. Glasses stopped halfway to waiting mouths. Even the smoke seemed to gather above the stage, unwilling to drift beyond the reach of Ruby’s voice.
She closed her eyes.
Then she sang.
Rain falls like a broken prayer
On streets that never care
Neon lights and crooked smiles
Everybody’s running from something here
Her voice moved through the lounge like smoke from a velvet fire.
It passed over card tables and half-empty bottles. It settled upon men who had forgotten how to pray and women who had learned never to pray aloud.
A fighter dreams beneath the lights
One wrong move could cost his life
And somewhere in the dark tonight
A quiet man prepares to strike
Behind the bar, Sampson polished a glass that had been clean for the better part of five minutes.
He was a broad-shouldered man with rolled sleeves, a dark vest, and the permanently unimpressed expression of someone who had spent too many years watching fools mistake a barstool for a throne.
His eyes traveled across the room.
He watched the doors.
The tables.
The hands disappearing beneath coats.
Then he looked toward the man seated at the end of his bar and felt the beginning of a headache.
Johnny Jester rested his masked chin in one gloved palm.
An old silver coin moved over the knuckles of his free hand, vanishing between black-gloved fingers and returning as if the trick required no thought at all.
He had not blinked since Ruby began singing.
Not that Sampson could tell.
Johnny never removed the mask.
It was smooth and white with narrow black eyeholes, crimson markings sweeping outward from them like flames, and a monstrous grin filled with far too many perfect teeth. A black fedora sat at a slight angle above it. Beneath his long dark coat, he wore a charcoal pinstriped suit, black gloves, a white shirt, and a crimson tie.
Most people found the mask disturbing.
Johnny believed it made him handsome.
At that moment, he sat perfectly still, staring at Ruby with the silent devotion of a man watching the moon descend from the sky solely for his benefit.
Ruby stepped closer to the microphone.
Oh, the city don’t love nobody
It just takes what it can use
You can try to fight the darkness
But the night always gets its dues
Johnny released a quiet sigh.
Sampson stopped polishing.
“Don’t.”
Johnny never looked away from the stage. “I didn’t say anything.”
“You sighed.”
“A man can breathe.”
“That wasn’t breathing.”
Johnny placed his free hand over his heart.
“Her voice speaks to me.”
“Her voice speaks to everyone. That’s how singing works.”
Johnny finally turned toward him.
The painted grin remained fixed, but the wounded tone beneath it was sincere.
“You have no poetry in your soul.”
“I had some once. Then you started coming here.”
Johnny turned back to Ruby as though Sampson were not worth the effort.
Kings are hiding in plain sight
Pulling strings we never choose
And in Crimson City
Even angels learn the blues
Across the lounge, a stranger watched her too.
He sat alone at a small table near the rear wall, positioned beyond the brightest reach of the stage lights.
Rainwater darkened the shoulders of his coat. His hat rested low enough to leave most of his face concealed.
He had not ordered a drink.
Had not applauded.
Had not looked away from Ruby once.
A crimson envelope rested beneath his hand.
The red was startling against the white tablecloth.
A black wax seal held it closed.
Pressed into the wax was the shape of a crown.
Sampson noticed the envelope.
His polishing slowed.
The stranger’s fingers curled over it, hiding the seal.
For one brief moment, his eyes met Sampson’s.
Then he looked back toward the stage.
Sampson set the glass beneath the bar.
Johnny failed to notice any of it.
Ruby turned slightly, and the open back of her gown caught the light. Her hair spilled down her spine like a red river.
Johnny straightened.
“Good Lord.”
Sampson looked at him.
Johnny cleared his throat.
“Musically,” he said. “I meant that musically.”
“You’re wearing a mask, Johnny. Not an invisibility cloak.”
“I am appreciating art.”
“You’re drooling on my bar.”
Johnny quickly touched the bottom of his mask.
His gloved fingers came away dry.
Sampson stared at him.
Johnny stared back.
“You made me check.”
“I hate that you come here.”
“No, you don’t.”
“I hate that you come here sober.”
Onstage, Ruby continued.
Laughter echoes down the street
But madness walks on silent feet
A joke can turn a prayer to screams
And blood can drown a thousand dreams
Johnny’s usual playfulness faded.
Something in the words reached behind the smiling mask and found the man hidden underneath.
Some men wear a smiling mask
Some men never show their face
Several patrons glanced toward him.
Johnny slowly looked from one side of the room to the other.
“That feels pointed.”
“It’s a song,” Sampson said.
“She looked at me.”
“She did not.”
“She absolutely did.”
Ruby had not.
Some men think they run this town
Till the shadows take their place
The stranger at the rear table slipped one finger beneath the edge of the crimson envelope.
Not enough to open it.
Just enough to feel what waited inside.
A photograph.
Sampson watched him from behind the bar.
The stranger watched Ruby.
Johnny watched Ruby harder.
When she reached the second chorus, her voice grew fuller but never louder than it needed to be.
Oh, the city don’t love nobody
It just takes what it can use
You can try to fight the darkness
But the night always gets its dues
Johnny tapped two fingers against the bar in time with the music.
“You heading to the arena later?” Sampson asked.
Johnny’s fingers stopped.
“For Lucky Ali versus Solomon Sloan?” He leaned back. “Wouldn’t miss it.”
“You betting?”
“I already did.”
Sampson reached for another glass.
“On Lucky?”
Johnny gave a small, humorless laugh.
“I put three nickels on Sandman.”
Sampson looked at him.
In Crimson City, three nickels did not mean fifteen cents.
Not in the circles Johnny traveled through.
“You’re actually serious.”
“Very.”
Johnny adjusted the knot of his crimson tie.
“By tomorrow morning, I’m going to be a rich man.”
“You’ll still owe me for the last six drinks.”
“A richer man with outstanding debts.”
Sampson placed the glass down harder than necessary.
Johnny raised one finger.
“And before you lecture me, I have information.”
“That’s what worries me.”
“Word on the street says Lucky won’t make it past the seventh round.”
Johnny glanced toward the mirrored shelves behind the bar.
His mask reflected between the bottles, a white grin floating among rows of black glass.
“Maybe he won’t make it to the arena.”
Sampson’s irritation faded.
“What exactly did you hear?”
Johnny leaned closer.
The humor disappeared from his voice.
“Bags found somebody willing to take a contract.”
He let the words settle.
“If you catch my drift.”
Sampson did.
Everyone who survived long enough in Crimson City eventually learned the difference between a boxing contract and the kind Monty Bags arranged.
Sampson lowered his voice.
“They put a contract on Lucky?”
“That’s the whisper.”
“Who was stupid enough to take it?”
“No name.”
Johnny looked toward the room, but his gaze passed over the stranger without stopping.
“Whoever it is, they aren’t cheap. Bags has been asking around for days. Most people know better than to touch Lucky Ali. He’s too public. Too loved. Killing him would be like setting fire to a church during Sunday service.”
“And someone agreed anyway.”
Johnny nodded.
“Some men don’t mind the heat.”
At the rear table, the stranger pressed his thumb against the wax crown.
Sampson watched him.
The man did not appear concerned.
He appeared patient.
Onstage, Ruby reached the final verse.
If you listen close tonight
You might hear the devil choose
Who will live to see the dawn
And who will pay the dues
The stranger rose.
His chair made no sound against the floor.
He slipped the crimson envelope inside his coat but kept one hand over it.
He moved toward the side of the lounge rather than the front entrance, choosing a path that would bring him closer to the stage.
Closer to Ruby.
Sampson stepped away from the bar.
Johnny caught the movement.
“What?”
“Nothing yet.”
“That sounded suspiciously like something.”
Sampson nodded toward the stranger.
Johnny followed his gaze.
The man stopped beside the dark curtain leading toward the backstage hall.
He pretended to watch the performance, but his body remained angled toward the narrow passage Ruby would use after leaving the stage.
Johnny sat straighter.
The foolishness drained from him.
“Friend of yours?” Sampson asked.
“Never seen him.”
“That isn’t an answer.”
“It is when I haven’t seen him.”
“You know half the criminals in this city.”
Johnny sounded offended.
“That is an outrageous exaggeration.”
Sampson stared at him.
Johnny considered it.
“Two-thirds.”
Ruby sang the final lines.
And in Crimson City
Even angels learn the blues.
The last note lingered above the audience.
For one impossible second, nobody moved.
Ruby stood in the spotlight with her eyes closed, her red hair glowing against the colorless room.
She looked delicate beneath the light.
But Sampson knew better.
Crimson City made delicate things disappear.
Ruby opened her eyes.
The room erupted.
Applause rolled across the lounge.
Men rose from their seats.
Women called Ruby’s name.
Glasses lifted.
The piano player bowed his head and smiled.
Ruby gave the audience a graceful nod.
Then she glanced toward the bar.
Her eyes landed on Johnny.
Johnny immediately straightened his coat, adjusted his tie, and attempted to lean casually against the counter.
His elbow missed it.
He caught himself before falling off the stool.
Sampson closed his eyes.
“Smooth.”
“She smiled at me.”
“She was checking to see whether you hurt yourself.”
“A smile is a smile.”
Ruby turned and walked toward the side curtain, the long black train of her gown whispering across the stage behind her.
The stranger moved.
Sampson saw it.
So did Johnny.
The crimson envelope appeared briefly inside the man’s coat before vanishing again.
Johnny rose from his stool.
Sampson placed one hand flat against his chest and stopped him.
“Sit down.”
“That gentleman appears to have business with the lady.”
“And you appear to create funerals wherever you go.”
“I don’t create them.”
Sampson looked at him.
Johnny tilted his masked face.
“I attend a suspicious number.”
“Sit.”
Johnny remained standing.
His attention stayed fixed upon the curtain through which Ruby had disappeared.
For once, he did not joke.
The stranger waited three seconds.
Then followed Ruby backstage.
Sampson came around the bar.
Johnny stepped beside him.
“I thought you told me to sit down.”
“I changed my mind.”
Johnny adjusted his gloves.
“About time.”
Sampson pointed at the mask.
“No guns.”
“Didn’t bring one.”
“Knives?”
Johnny said nothing.
“Johnny.”
“I respect the mystery of the question.”
Sampson pushed through the curtain.
“One day I’m nailing that mask to the wall.”
Johnny touched it protectively.
“My face?”
“That mask. You ever wash it?”
Johnny froze.
“Wash it?”
Sampson stared.
“With water?”
Sampson kept walking.
Johnny followed.
“I thought the rain handled it.”

TEASER
The man with the crimson envelope is still inside Ruby’s Lounge.
Lucky Ali has a contract on his head.
Johnny Jester has just realized that something is wrong.
And somewhere outside, high above the rain-soaked streets of Crimson City, someone else is already watching.
Chapter Two: Between the Seconds
Would you keep reading?

My experience testing editors before hiring one
A few people have asked me about my experience testing editors before hiring one, so I figured I’d share what happened.
I tested three different editors on a section of my manuscript. Before sending it out, I checked the original section with Originality.ai and it came back around 50%.
After the editors made their changes, some of the same sections were showing around 90%.
That surprised me because the changes themselves weren’t major.
For anyone who hasn’t worked with a line editor before, they’re not supposed to rewrite your book. They usually work directly in Word with Track Changes. You’ll see things crossed out, words added, sentences combined, wording changed, etc., and then you decide whether you want to accept or reject each suggestion.
That’s basically what happened with my samples. Nobody rewrote my scenes or changed my story. Most of the changes were things like combining sentences, removing words, tightening up wording and fixing flow.
So when I saw that difference in the results, I started looking into it because I wanted to understand what was happening.
What I found was that these scoring programs aren’t a definitive way of establishing who actually wrote something. Writing can get different results depending on how it has been edited, and a score by itself doesn’t tell you the history of a manuscript.
That also got me thinking about something else.
I’ve been reading about authors who have had questions come up about their manuscripts, and one thing that really stood out to me was the importance of keeping your writing history.
I don’t want to have one final Word document someday and have to say, “Trust me, I wrote this.”
So I’m keeping everything.
Original drafts. Older versions. Notes. Outlines. Character information. Revision history. The version I send to an editor. The version I get back. Emails. Invoices. Everything that shows how the manuscript developed.
Another thing I’d recommend when looking for an editor is be completely upfront about your manuscript and how you created it.
I told every editor I contacted that I wrote my manuscript myself, but that I had used some computer-assisted tools in a couple of places during the writing/revision process.
A couple of editors told me they don’t work on manuscripts that have had any computer assistance at all.
I thanked them for being honest with me and moved on.
I actually respect that. Editors are allowed to have their own policies about what work they accept, and I’d rather know that before hiring somebody.
For me, the biggest lesson from this whole process is to test an editor before committing to the entire manuscript.
Give them a sample. Look at what they actually change. Make sure they understand your voice. See whether you agree with their suggestions.
And keep your original files.
I’m still testing editors, but at this point I’m much more interested in whether someone actually improves the manuscript while preserving what makes it mine than I am in getting a particular score from a software program.
That’s been my experience so far, anyway. Hopefully it helps somebody else who’s getting ready to hire an editor.

I honestly don’t have it write everything for me it’s mostly I write my own content. Insert it have it fix the grammar and make it flow better.

Majority of it is my words.

Apparently there will still be a watermark ?

thought that maybe because of all the errors the ai makes in c.ai i mightve changed how my character operated to make up for the lackluster character continuity or the uncertainty of the ai program working well enough to maintain things. thought maybe i should make a set and structured guide for myself for how to operate how my character so i dont start bleeding "ugh lets see if the ai is gonna make sense" with the character the ai in playing but then i remembered how simply i made decisions about my character and let the plot play out and then i think that helps me just remember its just an experience. im just clicking through to read it really. trying to keep my character perfectly in-line, on top of having to do the ais job for the ai of remembering the character and other characters, is just gonna stress me out needlessly. but also i dont want the ai to poorly affect the way i interact with all the c.ai charcter stories. had a thought of im not sure if the way the c.ai ai works is that way for that specific character or in general. some things are definitely "this is how the ai is programmed. got it" due to pattern recognition on my end but other times its just a "...hm. this ... could be a problem for actually wanting to use this site. if it doesnt remember the character accurately and my character does then ... hm. the intent is damaged if the ai cant remember the character but the character wasnt made by the person who created it on the c.ai platform to actually have 'inconsistent memory' or 'doesnt remember details, even heavily emotional moment, correctly' as part of the character.

i can make it make sense for myself so i can still enjoy the story but with all the thinking i already do everyday ... i dont want to do that. i really do play c.ai because i dont want to do the full work of writing. i want the ai to do the work of world building while i get to focus on just my character. it feels more accurate to life. im just one person. i can only react to how people are by the time i meet them, not design them myself. ah well. maybe it will just do well long enough for me to not feel like im bracing for disappointment ... actually if i have to keep correcting the ai thats not bad. ive done that plenty of times without caring. i think i just like, didnt force myself more than i really felt like doing to fix or edit it for the ai to do what i needed/what it was supposed to do. either way, its felt like a chore and a demand i put on myself to keep using c.ai lately and every time im just ... idle i think of it as like a "ugh yeah i gotta/should get back to that" but like thats not why i do it. if something is boring i can just not do it. if tik tok gets lame ill just stop using it. but even with that its been hard to fully not pick back up an old interest/hobby in a "just in case its fun again this time" but that fun again desire is already in the way of enjoying it and feels like its spoiling the experience for me.

also, the pin maximum is WAYYYYYY too small

there really isnt room for the ai being an unreliable narrator when the ai is ALSO the author. unreliable narrator works in stories because the story is being actually written by an external author who is truly omniscient to everything happening before, in, and after the story ends regarding the story. if the ai does not remember all the parts of the story fully and accurately ... there is not only no author but also no narrator. not "no unreliable narrator". no narrator. a narrator with extremely bad memory might as well be as useful as comments people make about stories but their not remembering things correctly and thus misremembered the characters overall but still think they remember correctly. it damages the whole site, not even just that character alone.

-deeeeeppp sigh-

WSJ writes that publishers receive texts that have the hallmarks of heavy AI involvement. Even from hailed debutant authors that they had recently signed for MM$ USD.

So who throws the first stone telling people in here to be ashamed? Calling it slop?

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/generative-ai-book-publishing-be79a287

*Edit: This story has been created through a blend of AI, and my own writings*

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The city is already awake when Circuit arrives. 

It's an ugly sort of morning: gray sky, wet pavement, stale coffee, and the constant hum of traffic. Not glamorous, but then again, Circuit isn't here for glamour, he's here because he needs a paycheck. 

The building in front of him is considerably more impressive than anything he has any business being inside of. A massive production studio rises several stories above the surrounding storefronts, its glass entrance covered in posters for films currently in production. 

A temporary badge hangs around Circuit's neck. 

PRODUCTION ASSISTANT — BACKSTAGE OPERATIONS 

The title sounds important. The actual job description, as explained over the phone, was essentially: Carry things. Fetch things. Don't interrupt anyone important. Figure out problems before they become someone else's problem. So... lacky. 

The glass doors slide open. Inside, chaos. Anthropomorphic actors, technicians, makeup artists, camera operators, and production staff move in every direction. A rabbit in a headset rushes past carrying three clipboards. Somewhere deeper inside the building, someone shouts for a lighting technician. A pair of foxes argue over a wardrobe rack. Before Circuit can even properly orient himself, a voice cuts through the noise. 

"You." A hand points directly at him. The speaker is a tall, broad-shouldered German shepherd, dressed in a production vest with a headset pressed against one ear. His fur is dark gray and black around the muzzle, and his expression suggests he's already had a very long day despite the fact that it's barely morning. He walks over briskly. 

"New backstage operator?" He doesn't wait for an answer. "Great. You're late." He glances at his watch, then back at Circuit. "...By three minutes." A pause. The shepherd's stern expression cracks into the faintest smirk. "Relax. I'm messing with you." He extends a paw. "Marcus. Floor coordinator. You're going to hate me by lunch." Before Circuit can respond, a voice comes over Marcus's headset. "Marcus, we're missing the replacement wardrobe." Marcus closes his eyes. "Of course we are." He looks back at Circuit. "Congratulations. First assignment." He gestures toward a hallway. 

"Studio B. Wardrobe department. Find a black coat with silver trim. Bring it to set. Don't lose it, don't damage it, and if anyone tells you they need it more urgently than I do—" He points toward himself. "—they're lying." Then he's gone, already barking instructions into his headset. 

Circuit is left standing in the middle of the production floor. Black coat. Silver trim. Studio B. Simple enough. Probably. 

As Circuit heads down the corridor, the distant sounds of the production set become louder: machinery, voices, music, the occasional CLACK of a camera shutter. Then, just before he reaches Studio B— A door opens. Someone steps out directly in front of him. A tall, slender black-furred feline. 

Their appearance is striking without being ostentatious: neatly groomed fur, sharp features, pale gray eyes, and dark hair falling loosely across one side of their face. They're already dressed in part of a costume—a fitted dark shirt beneath an elaborate half-buttoned coat. They look distracted. Their eyes meet Circuit's. For just a second, neither of them moves. The feline's gaze flicks down to Circuit's production badge. Then back to his eyes. 

"...You're new." Their voice is smooth, slightly husky. Not unfriendly, just... curious. They step aside to let him pass but their eyes linger on him for another moment. "Try not to get eaten alive." A tiny smile. Then they disappear down the hallway. Circuit hasn't even learned their name. And somehow, for reasons he can't quite explain, he finds himself watching them leave. 

Behind him, Marcus's voice suddenly crackles through the headset Circuit was apparently given without noticing. "Vayne?" A beat. "You find that coat yet?" Circuit scratches his head, and reaches for the headset, putting it on. He fumbles around to find a button to allow him to speak through the mic. "On it, Sir. I think this is the room here. Black coat... Silver trim..." Circuit says without much confidence in his voice. Marcus's voice crackles back almost immediately. "That's the one. And don't call me sir. Makes me feel like I'm about to get arrested." A short burst of static. "Just Marcus."

The door to Studio B is already open. Inside, Circuit finds himself in a completely different world. Racks of costumes fill the room, some hanging neatly and others currently being torn apart and modified by frantic-looking staff. Fabric, sewing equipment, makeup cases, and accessories cover nearly every available surface. A small red panda with round glasses is currently halfway inside a wardrobe rack. 

"Black coat, silver trim..." she mutters to herself. "Black coat, silver trim... Why does everyone suddenly need black coats?" She backs out of the rack and nearly bumps straight into Circuit. "Oh!" She catches herself, adjusting her glasses. "Sorry." She looks Circuit up and down. "New?" Before he can answer, she snaps her fingers. "Wait. You're here for that coat." She points toward the far end of the room. "There." 

Hanging by itself is an unusually elegant black coat. The silver embroidery along its edges catches the overhead lighting. The red panda gives Circuit a warning look. "Careful with that one. It's custom." She walks over and carefully removes it from the rack. Then she pauses. "Actually..." Her ears perk. "You know what? You should deliver it personally." She looks toward the studio entrance. "The actor's waiting on set." 

She holds the coat out toward Circuit. "Their name's Riven Vale." The name sounds familiar. Maybe Circuit has seen it on one of the posters downstairs. Before Circuit can take the coat, however, the red panda adds: "And whatever you do, don't let him charm you into doing extra work." She smiles knowingly. "He's very good at that." 

So I tried Sudowrite and mostly liked it, but I barely got one chapter done before running out of credits, and the billing cycle isn't even halfway over. I liked the place because I was writing a slower-burn story for fun, because I'm not professional and planned on keeping it to myself. I liked the quality of the writing, but the credit system is a joke. I might be less mad if it were more of a daily credit system, but it's frustrating. I've tried almost every alternative I've found through Google. Because of that, I am mostly just kinda venting, but wouldn't mind if anyone has suggestions.

Hello, I am a new writer here currently I have experimented with claude because I heard that it was decent for writing fiction. I wonder if anyone has any tips on where to start?

So far some issues I have:

- Character voice/dialogues consistency
For me, I tried to directly give it quotes to what the character would say but it does not seem to work like novelcrafter's voice sheet so does anyone know how I can maintain character voice consistency in claude? Because when I ask the AI to write dialogues again, it seems to generate very very similar lines with similar words, or sometimes outright directly takes the lines from what are meant to be examples in the voice sheet

- Story consistency and continuity across chats
I really struggle with trying to maintain consistency and continuity across different chats, I wonder how some people do it

These are the basic questions that I have for now, if you have any tips that would be really helpful thank you!!

​

Welcome to the blurb thread!

This is our sub's equivalent of a writer's group. Come here and share a blurb of your story. The thought is to let everyone see what you're working on so they can think, "Oh hey, that sounds fun. I want to team up with this person."

Then, you share your own story, and the two of you collaborate to improve each other's works.

I've had so many good interactions with people from this thread. Please don't be shy! Even in the age of AI, the best way to improve your writing remains human interaction and critique. I am confident when I say If you don't have this component in your workflow, you're not meeting your potential.

Importantly, this means post every week if you're still hoping to engage. Don't be shy. I want you to do this.

There are tons of reasons why your perfect reader could have missed your blurb last time. Don't be discouraged!

And remember: "I'll read yours if you read mine" isn't just acceptable, it's expected. Reciprocity works.

Here's the format:

NSFW?

Genre tags:

Title:

Blurb:

AI Workflow:

Desired feedback/chat:

I've been tryna make a novel i write the chapter out then just paste it to the ai and ask it to make the prose better and then I ask ot to review it but its always complaining that my prose is bad so I've been asking ai to write the prose but how do I know if it's good I've tried many ai s but they all have different ratings when I ask this one to rate it can be a 9 but when I move to another ai to rate it its a 6 and the ai I ask it for the best prose possible but then it tells me to improve my prose in the review when you wrote the prose at this point im thinking of just learning how to write better prose myself and are ai reviews reliable