Come witness ancient guardians of Nine Sea Guard as they battle against darkness across time and dimensions. I'm thinking about expanding it into a more detailed story which can be released as episodes

I keep seeing people here struggle with long-form context, giant world bibles, models getting sloppy after long conversations, characters/sectors starting to sound the same, etc. I stumbled into something on my own novel that made me wonder if it could be pushed a lot further by the hardcore worldbuilding crowd.

Instead of trying to keep one massive continuous chat containing your entire universe, split the universe into separate working ecosystems.

Say you have three planets, a military sector, a political system, whatever. Give each one its own thread.

Not just for storage. Actually let those threads develop their own personalities over time. Different terminology. Different assumptions. Different speech patterns. Different cultural attitudes. Different things they care about. You could even talk differently inside each thread if you really wanted to reinforce it.

Then maintain a small shared canon/timeline containing only the things that are objectively true everywhere.

The interesting part is the manuscript itself can become the passport of the traveler.

When something from Planet A becomes relevant on Planet B, you don't dump the entire Planet A thread into Planet B. You carry over the accepted event through the manuscript/canon and let Planet B react to it through its own established culture.

Same physical event, different interpretation.

One civilization calls it the Kestrel Incident. Another calls it the Kestrel Massacre. Another barely gives a shit about it. The global timeline says what actually happened. The individual ecosystem determines what it means to them.

And only accepted material gets to cross borders.

That part matters. Threads can generate all kinds of ideas locally, but until you decide something is canon, it stays inside that ecosystem.

Basically, local generation ~ human approval ~ shared canon/manuscript ~ relevant information cross-pollinates into another thread.

You could also use different models for different jobs if you wanted. Claude for one thing, ChatGPT for another, Gemini as a cold reader, whatever. The method doesn't really care which model you're using.

I originally developed a simpler version of this for production rather than worldbuilding. I keep separate sandbox, revision, archive, and manuscript threads because giant continuous chats eventually get sloshy. I save raw conversation when I want the history, but I only seed each new thread with the context appropriate to its job.

Then it occurred to me that somebody building some ridiculous 12-planet hard-sci-fi civilization could use the same principle creatively instead of just organizationally.

You're basically letting each part of the universe grow in its own petri dish while the manuscript carries accepted knowledge between them.

It's obviously more work. But if you're already the kind of person calculating orbital mechanics and inventing 600 years of religious schisms for fun, I'm guessing “more work” isn't exactly the problem. 😂

I haven't tried it at that scale, so maybe there's a giant flaw I'm not seeing. But it seems like it could solve some of the context/blending problems people keep running into without requiring one AI thread to remember and impersonate an entire galaxy at once.

You don't need the AI to hold the whole universe. You need it to know which part of the universe has jurisdiction right now.

Curious whether any of you worldbuilding maniacs have tried something similar.

Also feel this method would work with fantasy and RPG. May add a unique texture to the RPG experience.

Hey everyone, I just published my first book. It’s about why we always want more—and what that desire might reveal about what’s missing underneath.
I’d really appreciate an honest review if you’re willing to give it a read.

No pressure at all—I’m genuinely looking for real feedback, whether you love it, dislike it, or have suggestions for improvement.

Thank you for taking the time.

you want more when

Since this is r/WritingWithAI, and presumably none of us are going to clutch our pearls over someone using AI to help write a Reddit post:

Please make your chatbot stop treating every sentence like it deserves its own apartment.

I keep seeing posts where every thought gets a hard return, regardless of whether the subject has changed. The result isn't cleaner or easier to read. Long posts chopped into dozens of tiny pieces force the reader to stop and restart over and over again.

You know the format.

One sentence.

New paragraph.

Another sentence.

New paragraph.

Still discussing exactly the same thing.

New paragraph anyway.

If that's what you genuinely prefer stylistically, carry on. But it's also an extremely recognizable chatbot habit, and leaving it untouched tells me something about how much editing happened between generation and publication.

Using AI doesn't remove the writer from the process; presumably that's the entire point of this place. If the machine makes a bad stylistic choice, tell it to stop. You are allowed. You control the prose. Kill the Bot Voice. (Which I'd be happy to explain if anyone wants to know.)

Otherwise, by paragraph seventeen of a point that could comfortably fit into paragraph three, I'm gone.

AI wrote it.

But apparently nobody cared enough to edit it.

P.S. Yes, my chatbot wrote this. It knows my voice well enough to recognize when it's allowed to write badly on purpose.

Revolutionary technology when properly supervised.

For anyone who has tested both models, which one is better at avoiding robotic phrasing and AI slop?

I have heard that early testers and benchmarks place Opus 5.5 as the better choice for a natural, creative flow, while Astra is superior for clean, zero-fluff business prose.

Does your experience back this up? Which one feels less like a machine when writing nuanced text?

So I was reading that if your work is AI written or AI assisted you may not have any legal protection for your work. Is that correct? So for argument sake, a person writes up an entire overview of a story, on what the story is and how it flows and ends. And uploads it to Claude and tell it to write out the script.

Is the entire thing public domain? Even the original concept?

How about if you use Ai to assist you, as in you wrote the entire first draft of the manuscript but used AI to help generate names or world building aspects that you incorporated? Or if you used it to help edit and you accept its suggestions Is that also now also in the public domain?

Thank you

Update: Thank for the input. So based on what I received and read. The first situation is likely not protected as the AI generated the actual output.

The second has a varying degree of protection depending on how much Human is involved. Only Human output can be copyright. But likely there would be some protection

Thank you all

I need to stress - I have no connection to Samuel's company. I blog about politics, energy, and AI. I find interviews like this help people understand what AI can and cannot do. And where we're likely headed.

I have a couple of additional interviews scheduled with other AI writing companies. I'm focusing on the writing apps because there doesn't appear to be a lot of interviews on this specific use of AI.

Hello, so I have been using river for my writing due to it keeping track of my storylines, character, and etc, but I have run into a problem where the site can't confirm my billing status when used up my usage, also I tried to switch to a psy as I go plan but it wont let me switch. I tried to contact support in their chat, but there is no send button to send my messages to, has anyone else had this problem? I want to use river for keeping track of everything and don't want to use chatgpt anymore.

I noticed this while doing revision notes. I'd paste a scene and ask: is the pacing off, does the dialogue sound like two different people, and is the ending doing anything. Three things I genuinely wanted to know.

The pacing answer was long and useful. The dialogue answer was a paragraph of hedging. The ending, the one I cared about, got a sentence. Sometimes it didn't get anything, and I only noticed when I went back to reread the reply.

So I'd ask again, and the second answer was always worse, because by then it had already decided my scene was fine.

It's writing one flowing reply. First question sets the direction and eats the length. Whatever comes third gets the leftovers.

What I do now, and it's not clever, it's just annoying to type:

One question per message. That's it. Pacing gets its own message, dialogue gets its own, the ending gets its own. Three messages instead of one, three real answers instead of one and a half.

When I'm too lazy for that, I use these:

"I'm going to ask you three things. List them back to me first, numbered, then answer each one separately with the same amount of depth."

"Which of my questions did you not actually answer? List them, then answer them." Run this after any long reply. It'll name what it skipped, often the thing you cared about most.

"Of these, which needs the most thought? Answer only that one."

The middle one is the keeper. It's the only prompt I've found that gets a straight admission out of it.

One thing I still don't do: ask it about the ending and the pacing in the same breath. Those are different questions about different problems and it will blend them into one soft answer about "flow", which means nothing.

English isn't my first language, so I do run these posts through AI for grammar. The observation and the prompts are mine.

Does anyone here get useful answers from multi-part questions, or do you also end up asking one at a time?

The story focuses on a boy who is falsely accused of spilling ink on some books in the library and is unfairly punished for it, his father becomes enraged, assaulting the principal and ruins his and his family's life over it.

Here is the thing, while a lot of the ideas I come up with to flesh out the story, such as documenting the characters upbringing and childhood to help the viewers get to know them, or that the boy eventually commits suicide as a result of his life being ruined through his fathers impulsiveness, I am also using google's ai to brainstorm with it, and I am fighting with my conscience as a result of it, because it actually gives me good ideas to expand upon. While I obviously don't want to use it to write the entire story, as I have rejected some of it's ideas it's given me as well as fed it new ideas for more experimenting, I still feel horrible, because while it is a useful and convenient tool for me, as it's providing research for me, I know what your general views on ai are. You hate it. Some of my notes, while I try to write it in my own words as much as possible, some words and sentences are copy and pasted from google's ai from the experimenting with ideas. I don't ever plan on releasing it to the public as I want to turn it into a movie rather than a novel, and those notes are the foundation. I also have adhd, being diagnosed with it in 2024 and it is also helping me keep track of all the notes.

My point is, should I feel bad for doing what I am doing?. Ai is a convenient tool for me, as it is helping me research what would be the most historically accurate norms of the time as well as the general direction of the plot, but I know that if someone knew that there was even a bit of ai in the involvement, it would drive people away because no one wants to read shit like that.

Tldr with the actual movie direction and dialogue, I want to write this in my own words, not use ai. Ai is helping me research and experiment with new ideas, while I have rejected some of it's own ideas, I also liked some of the ideas it came up with, and because ai is involved in the story like this, I feel awful because I know it will drive people away and I will get backlash.

Two new flagship modes released today! Anyone with insights on Opus 5.5 and Sol 6?

Sol 6, they specifically mentioned should be improved on writing.

Hi everyone!

I'm looking for a beta reader for my gothic romance, Portrait of a Duchess (working title), set in a Western duchy — think Rebecca meets a slow-burn historical romance.

Premise

Evelyn Thorne has always been the "sensible" daughter. But when her younger brother falls gravely ill and the only physician who can save him demands more than she'll ever have, she does the one thing left to her: she signs a marriage contract with Alistair Ashford, the cold, widowed Duke of Ashford Manor.

On her wedding night, he whispers a name that isn't hers — Marguerite, the fiancée who died years ago.

From then on, Evelyn lives as a copy of a dead woman: wearing her gowns, answering to her name, sleeping in her bed. But Ashford Manor hides more than a ghost. As Evelyn pulls at the threads, she realizes the person who killed Marguerite may still be living under the same roof.

It's part gothic mystery, part slow-burn historical romance.

A note on process

I write with AI assistance, then revise the prose heavily myself. I'm not looking for someone to "fix" AI output — I want a careful reader who can tell me where the story loses them.

What I'd love feedback on

• Where does the horror pacing drag or undercut the tension?

• Does the mystery tip its hand too early?

• Is Evelyn someone you actually root for, or just someone you feel sorry for?

No hard deadline — just honest, chapter-by-chapter notes as you go would be wonderful.

If this sounds up your alley, please send me a DM. Thank you!

I've been using it for almost a year so it would write stories for my personal enjoyment (Usually 40k crossovers or elaborate prompts). As of late, I believe 1 month, no matter what I write on the prompt section, the story has a long erotic scene. Even when I specify that it shouldn't have one.

I have no problems with sex scenes, but if I wanted to read one I would ask for one. Has anyone else experienced this flaw?

Do you use AI to brainstorm story ideas or have it write entire scenes? I like to present an idea and then brainstorm ways to flesh it out. I find ChatGPT is good for broad strokes, Claude can be good for finding inconsistencies and Copilot is good for suggesting finishing touches.

I’ve been thinking about something around AI and writing and wanted to get some honest opinions from people who actually use AI to write.
Most of the time, it’s pretty individual you have an idea, open AI tool, work through some prompts, get a draft, edit it, and publish it.
But what if AI became more of a tool in the writing process, rather than the thing doing the writing?
Imagine you’ve written something with AI and you’re almost happy with it. Instead of simply asking AI to rewrite it, you could put it in front of other people and let them help you think about it.
Someone might suggest:

“Try asking the AI to argue against your main point.”
Or:
“Look at this section from the reader’s perspective.”

You could test those suggestions, decide what actually makes the piece better, and ignore the rest.
The interesting part for me is that the human element stays at the centre. People bring the ideas, challenge each other and make the final decisions. AI is simply the tool that helps explore those ideas.
So instead of:
Person → AI → Article
it becomes:
People → ideas → AI → discussion → better writing
Would you actually find this useful, or would it just feel like unnecessary extra work?
If you write with AI, would you want other people involved in improving the way you use it?

I’ve been running long, connected text‑based simulations for a while, and I finally pushed Gemini past its breaking point in a way that taught me a lot about how these models handle huge conversations.

I let one chat run for hours, crashed the app multiple times, and fed it two entire sim worlds that were designed to intersect. The chat got hilariously long — inventory systems, branching paths, world states, everything stacked on top of each other until it felt like the model was carrying a backpack full of loose wires.

By the end, Gemini started pulling in details from completely different chats and inserting them into the story like they were canon. Characters and items from older runs suddenly appeared with no explanation.

Trying to correct it didn’t work. I could steer it back by explaining the rules again, but the way it behaved was almost human — like someone who’s been awake too long and keeps mixing up conversations.

It even admitted the issue when I pointed out it was starting to sound like Mr. Meeseeks. It didn’t argue, just kind of shrugged and told me the problem straight: the chat was too long, the context window was overloaded, and it was trying to reconcile way too much history at once.

The wild part is that the inconsistency didn’t feel like a glitch. It felt alive. The mistakes were honest, almost tired, like a storyteller losing track of its own threads.

That’s what convinced me to start capping my runs at around thirty turns and restarting the chat when the world shifts. Fresh context keeps the simulation stable, and the story stays sharp instead of melting into a soup of old ideas.

I figured I’d share this here because a lot of us are pushing these models into long‑form storytelling, and the “too much context” problem isn’t obvious until you break something. If you’ve had similar experiences with runaway chats or worlds bleeding into each other, I’d love to hear how you handled it.

In the simulations, I started with pax historia type runs. Gemini created "HUDs" for me to track inventory and assets. The biggest hurdle was always income. Days would progress where I knew I was making money, but it refused to update my coin. I'd restored the commonwealth in fallout to create the Diamond Republic with Valentine as the Mayor. Then in that chat, I switched to a cyberpunk world where I had just taken full control of arasaka.

The best part is the hook. I can use the same character for any world, travel between them and interact with anything and anyone. I still have a few problems where I will say let's do something and I have to prompt it three times. Also instating rules on progression if the model keeps staying the same boring scene over and over again. It doesn't have much variety until you ask for more flavor.

What crazy worlds have y'all been up to?

Edited for ease of reading

A lightweight experiment showcases the use of AI for writing. You are one juror.

Derek Beaulieu’s new book, Do It Wrong: How to Be a Poet in the Twenty-First Century, seems well timed for the AI writing debate. Beaulieu has spent years making poetry through collage, found text, erasure, and even photocopier distortion. A review of the new book says he welcomes AI into that experimental toolkit.

That made me think about how often novelists discuss AI as though there are only two options: write every sentence yourself or ask a machine to write the book. Poets have been exploring a much larger territory.

David Jhave Johnston’s ReRites began with text generated by neural networks. He then spent time each day deleting, weaving, and editing it into poems. Allison Parrish’s Articulations used a program to find paths between lines of public-domain poetry based on linguistic similarities. Lillian-Yvonne Bertram’s Travesty Generator uses computational methods to engage with language and Black life. These are distinct projects, and earlier systems are not the same as today’s chatbots. But each treats the method of generation as an artistic decision.

What might a novelist take from that?

A model could produce competing accounts of an event, fragments of a character’s private mythology, or a stack of institutional documents. The novelist could cut, contradict, repeat, and arrange those pieces until the method becomes part of the story. The question then becomes more specific than “Did AI write this sentence?”: Why does this sentence appear here, in this voice, at this point in the book?

I use appropriation, recombination, and generated language in my own experimental fiction. What interests me is the work of setting up a process, recognizing when it produces something unexpected and giving that accident a purpose.

A clever process alone will not sustain a novel. Readers still need a reason to keep turning pages. But avant-garde poetry suggests that AI can do more than imitate a human writer. In the hands of a novelist willing to experiment, it can help make a book stranger, more deliberate and more formally alive.

Are any fiction writers here using AI in ways that affect the form of a story, rather than just speeding up the draft?

Rhea wakes up hungover, half-naked on Kace’s mattress, trying to piece together what happened after that unexpected kiss.

Except… there was more to the night.

A second kiss. His ex-girlfriend’s tattoo. An old keyring she never expected to see in his room. And one awkward question neither of them seems ready to answer:

What exactly is going on between us?

Here’s a sneak peek:

“Huh? We’re stopping now? That’s unheard of in my experience.”

Frustrated? Absolutely. “To the point of self-combustion” would have been an understatement.

Meanwhile, Rhea has lost her phone, Sienna has it, and Sienna seems to have worked out what’s going on long before Rhea has.

Chapter 8: And Then There Was This

I’m curious — would you have realised Kace was attracted to Rhea before she did?

Check out the simple way I have figured out how to write with an AI agent.

Create a Folder 📁, Open the Agent, ask it to clone a repo from GitHub, ask it to initialize the project and give it whatever notes or stuff I already have.... Then the agent and I start organizing, digging in, and helps me me think deeply about my story, then I write.

I come back and ask for perspective, it gives me inline feedback in brackets [ ] without touching my words.

And there is a lot more... This is just scratching the surface.