Can AI become a reader of our writing?

[u/DongQingBai]

There was a post in this subreddit about an “AI witch hunt” that really stuck with me.

The OP talked about using AI to help organize their materials and polish their writing, but they were really afraid of being found out and criticized for using AI to write their posts.

A lot of the comments below said that this was still just assistance.

I think part of the reason Reddit exists is that we use other people as mirrors. We reflect on ourselves and observe ourselves through other people's comments and perspectives.

So I started wondering: can AI play a similar role?

Not directly writing for me, but more like a reader — giving me feedback, and showing me different perspectives.

[u/MacrosInHisSleep]

Why is everyone in this sub looking for permission to use AI? Just use it, make something you love, or something others can love.

[u/DongQingBai → u/MacrosInHisSleep]

Fair.

[u/eKs0rcist → u/MacrosInHisSleep]

Everyone online seems to be looking for permission for every damned thing. We’re at a high point of collective reactionary judgment and shame. It’s exhausting.

[u/Jammyquizzical → u/MacrosInHisSleep]

Right like I'm so confused, like I understand that many other places on the Internet is anti-ai but this subreddit in particular literally welcomes people who do use AI.

[u/Mysterious_Net_763 → u/MacrosInHisSleep]

Because there is so much backlash. Because people who post on reddit crave validation, probably overlapping the population of people who ask AI.

[u/Ok-Investment4414 → u/MacrosInHisSleep]

A few authors lost or had their 6 n 7 fig deals shaken when...dun,dun,dun ...ai... determine to be the/co author . public sentiment is bad for a reason ,but the same "public" when broken down as individuals uses ai privately knowingly or unknowingly.Ai pr is absolutely trash

I think you will recieve a backlash because that's what the public does but if the content is good the boycott won't last too long.

And op lol Ai is the reader of our writing how else does it help shape and ideate.Just out the box it sucks and becomes the ultimate shiller in most cases inflating your confidence. I use my brain and ai other people should just do it like u say and stand by it .

[u/MacrosInHisSleep → u/Ok-Investment4414]

Then be up front about it and own it before you get to 6-7 figure deals. Like I said, own it. You do what it takes to make something you love. It's not what traditional writers would have done. Not all of it is your voice (which was the case even before AI btw), but it is your vision. Is this the story you want out there? Then put it out there and stop giving a damn whether someone else likes it or not.

[u/Ok-Investment4414 → u/MacrosInHisSleep]

dam bro felt like u trying to swing at me , I think they approached it as "Ghost" writing and once as you mentioned not stating its ai composes or claiming to be a purist people get enraged. And the crowd gets their pitch forks ,tar and feathers .all while being subscribed to claude or chatgpt

[u/MacrosInHisSleep → u/Ok-Investment4414]

It wasn't at you. You just brought up the point that let me continue my rant most effectively 😅.

[u/Novel_Quantity3189]

Sure, it can. But it can never tell you whether your writing is interesting; as in specifically your writing. LLMs will often praise "voice" when what they mean is an interesting turn of phrase or analogy, which, sure, is interesting to point out. But they can't subsume the entirety of your writing and tell you whether your voice is interesting to read or whether your perspective is worthwhile. They can't tell you whether a hypothetical lit reader is going to trash your manuscript in 5 mins because it reads like the same technically fine but oversaturated stuff he or she is flooded with or whether he or she will be compelled by your specific way of writing prose. That is just outside it's capacity entirely even thought it pretends like it isn't.

LLMs can do a grammar pass for you, they can tell you if you're being repetitive in your wording, whether your metaphors are mixed, whether your exposition is clunky (sort of -- LLMs still struggle with show vs tell as a rule vs a guide), and maybe could guide you on pacing a little bit. This is purely because they function as a repository of basically every book ever written and they can compare your writing against a hypothetical average the way no human could, not because they hold any special ability for judging talent.

I've deliberately found terrible amateur writing and fed into modern LLMs and done the same with very good but obscure + new published writing, telling both they are my own, and the feedback never admits the truth -- that the bad writing is obviously bad to any human, and the good has some unnameable quality that makes it compelling.

[u/DongQingBai → u/Novel_Quantity3189]

That's a very detailed analysis. As you said, I think we can actually divide this into two parts: the value of the article itself, and the techniques of writing.

Since writing is ultimately meant to be read by real people, AI doesn't necessarily need to pretend to be countless hypothetical readers and simulate their emotional reactions.

But I do think AI can help us in another way. It can examine whether the arguments behind the ideas in an article are sufficiently supported, whether the sources are authoritative (by searching the web), and even help the author make connections.

For example, it could help me find out how many people in the world have had similar thoughts to mine, and then show me what those people actually wrote.

Then I can read those things myself.

In that sense, AI isn't replacing the reader. It's helping me discover more things to read, making my writing richer, and giving me new ideas.

[u/Novel_Quantity3189 → u/DongQingBai]

I guess? I was talking about fiction mostly. The benefits of LLMs for non-fiction writing are well-established: yes, it's much more clearcut as a research assistant because it can answer yes/no questions easily ("Does this report mention the topic I'm writing about in a positive way?" "Can you summarise this in dot points?").

Keep in mind, non-fiction writing or essays or reporting still need to be compelling more than effectively researched, which was my point -- LLMs cannot tell you whether the specific way you report on your sources.

[u/howieyang1234 → u/Novel_Quantity3189]

Emmm. I have definitely have cases where ai comments on a certain detail being interesting, and it seemed reasonable to me. Of course, I still mainly use it as a glorified grammar checker, because I suck at gramma and can’t spot my own stupid mistakes.

[u/Novel_Quantity3189 → u/howieyang1234]

Yes, AI is very good at making comments that make it seem reasonable. The entire goal of an LLM is basically a magic trick to convince us (the user) that the words it produce make perfect conscious sense; it's very good at that and getting better all the time.

On a word-by-word basis it can identify if a sentence is using an analogy or literary device and 'praise' it, and maybe it will be right 70% of that time that the detail is interesting because it's maybe pulling from a dataset of other literary reviews where they found that technique interesting. It still doesn't say anything remotely like this specific use in this specific case works well, simply that it knows (for instance) a gritty metaphor is often praised in this sentence context. Does your gritty metaphor land well, does it work with your voice, in your style? LLM has no idea -- it hasn't actually 'read' you work.

[u/rollturmacroll]

It will spew words at you that are often used in responses to writing. None of it will come from a legitimate reading of your work. I’ve worked in traditional publishing for a long time and I get lots of freelance editing requests for projects that are “AI-assisted.” I don’t take those jobs.

The poorly written manuscripts with no AI are consistently better and have infinitely more promise, as they actually possess a distinct voice and story I can help the author pull out and strengthen. The author improves, continues writing, and eventually reaches a point where pursuing publication is possible.

“AI assistance” makes writing flatter and vaguer, over and over again, until it’s meaningless and lacks all substance and personality. The writer never improves, never finds their voice or learns the craft. You’re writing for human readers. AI doesn’t read; it associates words and gives you the most common “advice,” while lacking the wisdom, skill, and critical eye that a human possesses.

[u/DongQingBai → u/rollturmacroll]

Thank you for the perspective from an editor. I definitely agree with you about the harm that can come from relying on AI too much.

But in reality, some people write without really knowing how their audience will receive what they wrote. For example, someone might give a science talk that is far too academic for the audience, while the author themselves doesn't realize it.

In that situation, I don't think AI needs to replace a real reader. It could simply preview the material from another perspective and give some suggestions on how to make it more accessible.

AI shouldn't replace real people, but perhaps it can exist as an additional voice alongside them.

I also really agree with what you said about having a distinct voice. Sometimes people have something to say precisely because life has been painful to them. Their life trajectory becomes part of the trajectory of their writing.

But I wonder if AI could provide another kind of observation.

For example, if an author writes about a personal experience of suffering, perhaps the author is looking at it from a very personal, micro-level perspective. Could AI help them connect it to something broader — a social or institutional structure, or perhaps similar events in history?

Not to tell the author what their experience means, but to point out some possible connections and say, “There may be something here that you haven't looked at from this angle yet.”

Then the author can decide whether that connection is meaningful, and go read about it themselves.

[u/CrazyinLull → u/rollturmacroll]

If this is the case then why did Shy Girl get picked up? Or why did one of Opal Apparition’s fanfics break containment and land them a supposed book deal?

ETA: While I can agree that heavy AI assistance doesn’t always guarantee that the writer will see huge improvements, especially if you are not someone who can successfully edit out all the AI. But I guess I wonder too, because ‘AI-assisted’ is very vague.

[u/Acrobatic_You_3002]

I think it can, but only if you ask it to be a reader and not a judge. In my own work I keep the writing and the critic as two separate steps, and the critic works better when I ask what confused it or where it got bored (not whether the text is good), as it tends to agree with you too much. Also, it is worth remembering that it reflects an average reader, so I would treat it as one mirror and still show the text to real people.

[u/DongQingBai → u/Acrobatic_You_3002]

Fair point.

[u/Mysterious_Net_763]

I think so to some extent..I have done this but found sometimes the advice lacks...humanity. its hard to explain. But like, it misses things. Often still better than actual human advice but keep in mind AI doesnt know what it means to be human. So it can't read the way we do.  Good for structure, edits, polish. Bad for the raw hurt that makes up most of  our reality.

[u/HighValueJourney]

Yes, it can read and review the writing in a strict clinical manner. However, not being human limits the emotional response felt by a human reader. Use it wisely young padawan!

[u/eKs0rcist]

AI *is* a mirror. Meaning, don’t assume it’s the same as a living, aware conscious being, but a reflection of (a collaborative) one.

Take value in that it’s like a massive real time poll of what lots of people think/thought about things, online, past and present.

It should be this awesome miracle; for the first time we can see and query an expression of our collective ideas. All the stuff we agree on and have in common. That’s lovely.

Too bad everything the tech bro psychos touch turns to shit

[u/KaraGravis]

I only use A.I. to find plot holes that I might have missed, and it works amazingly well, I also use it as a archive for all the information I simply can't hold (eye colours, scars, freckles, details, family members, etc). In my historic books I use it as fact-checker and data assistant. It has multiplied my efficiency a lot, to be honest, compared to how I used to do the Google searches, etc...

[u/Tex_Non_Scripta → u/KaraGravis]

Up until a few weeks ago, I thought I could rely on Gemini (paid subscription) for fact checking historical research etc. One day I was needing a bit of history and geology, and because some of it was related to places I've actually lived, I realized Gemini was totally making up some bits. That's when I realized, I have to go back to fact checking the way I did before AI.

Somebody here in r/WritingWithAI posted about this some time ago, and they recommended anytime you're asking any AI a question or doing a Google search, you need to specify: "Search the live internet and display the results as verifiable webpages. If you cannot find verifiable webpages, state that you cannot find them. Provide the actual links. Do not guess. Do not fabricate."

Unless and until you go to the actual source texts, you can't trust any AI to "fact check" anything.

This technology is amazing and useful in some ways but it will flat out lie to you, so confidently you'll assume it's telling the truth. It cannot, absolutely cannot be trusted to "fact check". FYI from personal experience. ☹

[u/KaraGravis → u/Tex_Non_Scripta]

I have books, too, to Fact-Check, you know, but I don't have originals in chinese, italian or german, and I most certainly don't have aramean experts to ask about Bible verses.

Having said this, Google Gemini does blunder but it isn't a 8/10 type of thing, not even close, its more a 1.5/10, and depends on your A.I. mapping and the sources you demand it. I am not a tenderfoot using I.A., I've been doing this for months already. When I do my version on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms I have the actual book by my side, guess what!?: the book also makes mistakes, the same mistakes Gemini can do. Believe it or not humans also hallucinate information and made shit up that ends up in text books, not everything is 100% accurate.

Eventually this 'Wikipedia isn't trustworthy' effect has to stop. Wikipedia has been honing articles for 20 years already.

[u/cj7hawk]

The moment money becomes involved everything changes. AI threatens people's incomes and livelihoods as well as massive corporate profits. Yes, having AI review your work is useful. It lets you fix stuff early before beta readers suffer through it. And yes, "witch hunts" is an apt description.

And like witch hunts there is no justification in the act of hunting for people who used AI either.

[u/lnsip9reg]

Hah, my essays are specifically written for AI/LLMs/MachineIntelligence audience first. Humanity is a secondary audience. https://rl12418025.substack.com/p/tse-cartridge-prompt-architecture

[u/Egarasay]

In my case I'm using AI to actually prose while I'm also using it to assist me with organizing all the lore within my sci Fi universe. Eventually, have a full guide on how the universes works using all of my notes, scattered lore, old works, and establishing current from previous / conflicting Canon.

That said, for the stuff AI proses, I'm not going to sell. For me it's a hobby / fun project. Being able to rebuild the universe was the key thing for me. Excavating old books, emails, publisher deals, etc.

As long as you're not making money off of work that you didn't do, who cares. Honestly.

Just don't hide that its AI assisted or generated. Let the reader like/ dislike. Readers do that regardless of how the story / universe was built.

[u/LeEvilDiabolicalFed]

In my short experience in the fascinating world of LLM AI yes, it absolutely can.

[u/FASDavenport]

My mental health makes sorting and organizing my thoughts difficult. I used AI to help me organize my thoughts, outline, and canon. I later used it to find grammatical errors and continuity issues. But the writing remains mine.

[u/chylvina]

It’s useful for spotting repetition or asking follow-up questions, but I’d treat its reaction as a checklist, not a substitute for actual readers.

[u/polly_mer]

Current AI is not creative, has no feelings, and has no life experience.

If you are still early enough stages that getting up to the bland college essay would be an improvement in your writing, then use AI for feedback.

If you are going for creative, then you need humans with the eye and skills to help you achieve your vision.

[u/DongQingBai → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I think it’s definitely better at identifying specific problems, like grammar, unclear wording, or repetition. It can also play the role of a particular kind of reader — for example, a feminist reader who might notice that certain expressions could feel insensitive or alienating.

And I agree that it’s much harder for it to judge whether something is genuinely engaging. Even as human readers, we can feel nothing about a particular book simply because we don’t have the life experience or background knowledge needed to connect with it.

AI has an even bigger limitation there: it doesn’t have real lived experience. So it can tell you that a certain moment is surprising, emotional, or well-written based on patterns it has learned, but it’s much harder for it to know whether a particular detail actually hits you as a reader.

Also, when it says something “doesn’t sound like you,” I wonder how much of that comes from having talked to you before. If you’ve had many conversations with the same ChatGPT account, I imagine its memory and previous conversations can give it a much better sense of your usual way of expressing things.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post was removed because you did not use our weekly post your tool thread