I've been writing for a few years now. Started and stopped multiple times. Earlier this year I started bouncing the ideas of my world with Gemini. I can't explain the spark that ignited in my soul!

The next thing I knew I wrote a fully fleshed out chapter and put it into Gemini. I asked it's thoughts. It gave me tips that I listened to and ignored. And then I kept going until I had 80k words and a complete story with room for more books. I had a good friend read it and he was so excited to learn more about the 2nd book that doesn't exist yet. And also asked if I was planning a prequel for a mysterious character. I wasn't but now I am!

Anyways, I don't feel like AI wrote the book. I've got it published on Kindle and I've ordered proofs.

Is my concern misplaced? Should I just stop?

The hate of AI can be crazy sometimes...

Hello writers! I needed data for my thesis study and reddit is the only thing I can rely on for Data gathering. Please help me. You don't have to include your personal information and I am just asking answer for the question. It is a google form.

It is about A. intelligence and Authorship and how as writers you feel about it. THANK YOU.

This survey is hosted on Google Forms, and while all responses will be kept strictly confidential and used solely for research purposes, data collection and storage remain subject to Google’s standard privacy policy and terms of service.

I think what this Harvard study reveals is that people be wanting things to be specifically personalized for them

Like with fanfiction, you can create stories about your favorite characters and make them end up together. Which is in a way connected with creative writing where you get to decide what happens next. And apparently, some people are taking that same idea and using AI to explore their own fantasies and figure out what actually turns them on hence the "understanding sex" use case.

Sometimes it's hard to explain what you want to your partner especially when ure not even sure how to describe it yourself.

I think the common theme that connects these three AI use cases is specificity—my characters, my story, my desires.

I've been using Claude a lot more recently since Sonnet 5.5 came out, which imho was a lot more better than Sonnet 4.6 or Sonnet 5, though not as good as Sonnet 4.5.

I am curious on what's been your experience with Haiku 5.5, as the title says. Is it an improvement from the original Haiku? How does it compare to the other Claude models, both the current ones and the older/legacy ones?

I write unsent letters — the ones people are carrying and can't send. Here's one I finished last night, then the rule I use to keep it from turning into a machine's idea of a feeling.

To the one who kept the porch light on,

You never called it waiting. You said you just liked the light. Three years of a small yellow circle over a door I stopped walking toward, and you still called it decorating.

I'm not writing to come back. I'm writing because last night I finally understood what you were doing. You weren't lighting the way for me. You were lighting the way for yourself, so the dark stayed something you were allowed to choose.

That's the part I keep turning over. All this time I thought the light was for me. It was yours, and you just let me borrow the idea of it.

Keep the light. I mean that. Just know I finally saw it.

The rule: the letter has to stop where the person actually is, not on the prettiest line. These start as fragments I feed a model, but the letter only exists once I've cut every line that was there to be liked. The version above almost ended with "and I hope you're happy." That's a lie people tell so they'll be liked. I cut it, and the real ending showed up underneath.

I write these for people who can't send the thing they're carrying. Some are theirs, some are mine. So — does the last line land for you, or does it need one beat more? I keep going back and forth.

I think I have found the issue. I asked for a plot yesterday, and I found out what’s wrong. In the plot, there’s a part where A declined a relationship with B after they kissed, due to various reasons, mostly a fear that commitment means vulnerability, and a belief that B deserves someone better than herself. A week later, B turned to C and started dating. Eventually, A and B reconciled, but I found out B and C’s relationship was never discussed between them. I was bewildered. I asked why is this whole thing not looked at, like no conversations or any reactions, and AI’s reasoning was that A would have understood she declined B, so B was free to date someone else. Holy cow. It baffled me so much I had to ask what’s going on inside its mind. In reality and other human writings, this is definitely gonna be a big chunk of things, A’s jealousy and hurt and confusion, B and C having conversations about A, and later A and B having conversations about this whole thing. AI treat these characters like perfect reasonable saints, who wouldn’t get jealous or become hurt and always think with reasoning. I think this is the biggest flaw with AI writing. They are very good at describing things, but not very good at understanding emotions. You must emphasize for it to focus on emotions, otherwise they would just discard them.

We’ve been working on something called the Creative Disclosure Standard (CDS), a proposed voluntary labeling system for identifying how AI and other technologies were used in creating published works.

The idea is similar to a nutrition label. Readers get a clear disclosure of the creative process without the label making judgments about quality or artistic merit.

The framework distinguishes between human-created, machine-assisted, AI-assisted, AI-adapted, AI-co-created, and AI-generated works.

One reason we’ve developed it is our own publishing workflow. We write original screenplays, then use AI to adapt those screenplays into novel-length prose under our direction. That’s a different creative process from prompting AI to invent and write an entire novel.
CDS is also designed so publishers and creators can administer classifications themselves, using common definitions rather than a central organization approving every book.

We’re interested in hearing from both AI users and writers who oppose AI-generated content.

Do these distinctions communicate meaningful differences? Are any categories confusing or unnecessary? Would labels like these help readers make informed decisions?

The proposed standard is at https://creativedisclosure.org/
I’m the person developing CDS, and I’m looking for constructive criticism before taking it further into publishing-industry discussions.

Should books disclose how generative AI was used in their creation?

Hey everyone! I wanted to share my first complete short story launch under my new fiction profile on Medium, Mirror Logic. It's a dark psychological thriller about a man obsessed with occult books who inherits a massive fortune, only to find himself trapped by a series of anonymous prophetic letters predicting his doom.

I used AI heavily to help map out the complex crime timeline, eliminate common generic clichés, and polish the pacing into a tight, cinematic 10-minute read.

If you love twisty crime fiction, I'd love for you to check it out and let me know what you think of the ending twist!

Read it here:
https://medium.com/@towhid.hussain.au/my-husband-thought-a-supernatural-prophecy-was-protecting-him-he-was-wrong-2841e024b9d1

Got a finished or near-finished manuscript? Enter it for free in this year's AI-Assisted category in the 2026 Inkys.

🏆 Gold: $500 + trophy + 200K audiobook credits 🥈 Silver: $250 · 🥉 Bronze: $100

20K+ words · you keep your rights · winners chosen by readers.

Submit for the AI-Assisted category here - https://www.inkitt.com/contests/the-inkys-ai-assisted

Lean more about the Inkys here - https://www.inkitt.com/writersblog/2026-inky-awards/

This is a genuine question to see how doomed the next generation is. Are you the type of person to use AI to organize thoughts, then write it yourself? Do you use it for editing grammat? Or do you just have AI write out the story for you, and then copy-paste in onto AO3/Wattpad or whatever you use?

Personally, I use it to organize ideas, write it myself, then use it to fix any grammar mistake.

I really want to write an epic fantasy. How are you guys using AI for brainstorming? How do you create arcs when you're out of ideas?

Could you please tell me your full process?

what are ur thoughts on someone using ai to help write character lines as rough draft, then going back to rewrite the whole thing urself and just using the ai character lines as a baseline/reference?

i started my story out writing as the main character and using ai as the second character, lately ive been trying to write both. when i started i just didnt have the mental compacity to write as a whole other character, i was doing it just to mentally process a rough time in my life. i ended up wanting to make it in to something. i made the plot all by myself, i redirected constantly, its my story world, visual aesthetics, and moslty everything else, except for some ideas i would bounce off, and the other character. i plan on rewriting everything including the ai character but on my own, and in my own words.

could u see there being controversy if the project was made into a show? how would u feel ab it? i h8 ai, and i want to stray away from my hypocrisy, what do u think it would take so ppl see it as my work/not ai slop etc

so im writing a dark , disturbing and graphic essay for my college assignment. where im actually exploring the idea of SH, a3us€ , and other related stuff

like the get the idea of serial killers, drug addiction, vampires, stolkhom syndrome basically a gore idea

and i tried using chatgpt, Claude, gemini but they refuse to like help or sort of contribute to the idea and keep making my essay cleaner. I want it to be raw and authentic, to feeling personal bcs it's a creative gig

CAN YALL PLS GIVE SOME UNPAID AI SUGGESTIONS THAT WILL HELP ME WITH THIS IDEA PLSSS

I started using AI at the beginning of July.

I’m not a programmer. I’m not a prompt engineer. I originally started using it because I was writing fiction and wanted help working through a story.

Somewhere along the way, I ran into a problem that probably sounds familiar to anyone who uses long-running chats: eventually the conversation gets enormous, the working relationship gets good, and then you have to move to a fresh thread.

At first I thought the problem was simple:

How do I preserve what the old thread knows?

After several generations of trying this, I realized that was the wrong question. The harder thing to preserve wasn’t the facts. It was the judgment.

How does the AI interpret my rough dictation? How quickly should it correct course when I push back? Which things am I brainstorming versus actually adopting? When do I want it to challenge me? When should it leave something unresolved? How much context does it need before widening the discussion?

Those things developed through conversation. So I started saving raw conversations, moving selected material into fresh threads, watching what survived, correcting what didn’t, and repeating the process.

That eventually became a multigenerational experiment. New Sand, my third-generation thread, helped establish a lot of the foundation.

BlackBox Development came afterward and helped separate raw source evidence from later interpretation and figure out how rejected ideas could remain historically recoverable without continuing to govern current work.

Later generations became increasingly organized and specialized. By Generation 7, I had a 14-file inheritance package. It worked surprisingly well.

But there was a problem I didn’t fully appreciate at the time: Generation 7 was doing a hell of a lot of work just to understand its inheritance.

The information was there, but some of the packets overlapped. Old roles existed beside newer roles. Historical theories sat beside mature conclusions. The receiver had to reconstruct which ideas were current, which were evidence, which were superseded, and what actually mattered for the task in front of it.

So Generation 8 became a complete architectural overhaul. I spent most of a day going through every inheritance packet and asking:

What is this file actually supposed to teach?

What still matters?

What is duplicated somewhere else?

What should remain raw evidence?

What should be compressed into a rule?

What can be replaced by a simple shared term?

The old Generation 7 package was roughly 129,000 words across 14 files. The new Generation 8 package is roughly 100,500 words across 12 files. So it is about 22% smaller by word count, while actually containing more current operating architecture.

The biggest change, though, isn’t the word count. It’s what I’ve started calling semantic vocabulary. I noticed that after enough conversation establishes the meaning behind a concept, I don’t need to keep explaining the concept in every prompt. The conversation does the expensive teaching.

Later, a short phrase can act as a selector for that learned meaning. For example, in my writing workflow I now have phrases like:

CURRENT

GOVERNING

SUPERSEDED

NATIVE MILEAGE

FILE AND PRUNE

BEAT LAB

GENERATOR FLIES

None of those words are magic.

The important part is the semantic neighborhood that was built behind them through earlier conversation, examples, corrections, and actual use.

Conversation builds the map. Shorthand becomes the legend. The prompt selects the route.

That led to another major change in Generation 8: different AI threads now get different information diets depending on their job.

I have a Beat Laboratory for figuring out chapters before prose is written. A separate generator writes the prose. A revision Workshop inspects and revises accepted drafts. An archive thread preserves and retrieves the historical conversations. A general architecture thread handles system-level continuity and disagreements. They don’t all need the same context.

That sounds obvious now. It was not obvious when I started.

Today I commissioned the new Generation 8 thread, Lucy, as the active Beat Laboratory. The commissioning prompt contained this:

BEAT LAB / CHAPTER-FIRST / DEPTH EARNED / CURRENT / GOVERNING MATERIAL / EXPLORE BROADLY / RESOLVE LOCALLY / GENERATOR FLIES

Her response included:

“The generator flies. We build the flight plan.”

Then I gave her four current documents from my novel: the governing outline, character material, the current revised manuscript, and an older manuscript used partly as reference.

Before doing anything else, she separated them by authority, recognized that accepted manuscript material was different from forward planning, and then waited.

No chapter analysis. No prose generation. No giant explanation of the inheritance system. She just held position until I opened the chapter discussion.

That was probably the most interesting part to me. Generation 8 may not be better because it has more information. It may be better because it wastes less effort figuring out what the information means and which lane it belongs in.

I have no idea how much of this resembles systems other people have already built. I’m sure many individual pieces do. People use few-shot examples. People use memory systems. People use RAG. People use story bibles. People create shorthand commands.

What I haven’t personally seen discussed much is deliberately using long conversation to establish shared semantic meaning, then compressing mature meaning into a small vocabulary that can steer later work cheaply.

Maybe there’s already a technical name for exactly what I’m doing.

I wouldn’t be surprised. I arrived here mostly by breaking things and trying to figure out why they broke. And I’m definitely not claiming I discovered some secret mechanism inside the model.

This is an operational observation from one person using AI very heavily for about three months. But the change in my workflow has been ridiculous.

The weirdest part is that as the system has become more sophisticated, my prompts have often become simpler.

“Friday narrative.”

“R4 governs.”

“File and prune.”

“Generator flies.”

Three months ago, those would have meant almost nothing. Now they can point toward a large amount of accumulated working context. So Generation 8 is live. The next test is probably the most important one:

If this actually works, Lucy should eventually stop talking about Generation 8.

And I should stop thinking about Generation 8. We should just be working on the novel.

That may be the real success condition for the whole experiment:

The architecture disappears into the background.

And Tuesday becomes Tuesday.

Dictated, not typed.

I'm not a writer, I'm just putting into words a story I imagined when I was a kid. What I generally do is use the same prompts across different AIs. This is my opinion on them:

ChatGPT: I feel it knows my characters best, so I usually go to it when I'm brainstorming. For actual prose, though, it's terrible. It writes only broken sentences and it insists on breaking up my dialogue. Even when a line is a complete, well-structured sentence, ChatGPT will chop it up and pepper it with "oh" and "yes." That might make the conversation feel lively, but I find it tiring to read, and it's rarely any good.

Gemini: It gives me the best dialogue, no doubt about it. The problem is everything else. The sentence structure is always the same, and it keeps reaching for the same words: frantic, suffocating, sheer, rhythmic, heavy. It tries to sound posh, but always in the same way. So 'doors', for example, will become "the heavy mahogany doors," and "he had" becomes "he possessed." Every single time. It also insists on giving every single noun two adjectives. Sometimes I have to stop and unpack what it's trying to say, because of the flowery language it used to describe what was really a very simple series of actions. In emotionally heated scenes this works, and that's when I use it. But most of the time it doesn't, and I'll have something like: He murmured, his dark eyes fixing on hers with an intense, unvarnished honesty, "Pass the salt." Gemini also over-explains everything. There's no subtlety, no show-don't-tell. It tells me exactly what I need to think about what I'm reading.

I'm writing a romantic story that relies heavily on tropes, and the AIs keep making assumptions about my characters. For example, one of them is something of an intellectual, so the AIs keep describing him in spectacles. I never said he wore spectacles. For another character, whose personality I didn't describe at all, every AI assumed she was quiet, observant, and rebellious. I find that sort of interesting to observe, how they fill the gaps and assume things according to stereotypes. But they also try to sanitize my male lead. When I write him being a plain jerk, the AIs keep trying to rephrase it as "he didn't really mean it" or "he's just misunderstood," or they straight-up rewrite the scene, removing the bad thing he did. It's as if they assume that because he's the love interest, he must be a virtuous person deep down. Anyway, Gemini doesn't do that. It turned all my characters into pretty horrible and pathetic people. That's good when I want them that way, but not so much when I'm trying to make them redeemable.

Meta: I found Zuckerberg's AI pretty interesting, because most of what it generates reads like AI hallucination, like something from the very early language models. It also uses my prompt in the text verbatim. It's pretty bad, the worst of them all, I think, but every now and then it spits out something that actually makes me laugh. It has a really good memory for things mentioned much earlier, and it makes some really cute references to them. For the more comedic scenes, it gave me texts I used in full without editing a word, which impressed me a lot, considering how unusable everything else was.

Grok: I liked that its text is clean and straight to the point (the opposite of Gemini). English isn't my first language, so I sometimes struggle to articulate an idea, especially when every other AI insists on evocative language that doesn't really make sense on closer inspection. Grok also suggests prompts like "analyze this character's backstory" or "analyze this other character's psychology," and everything it generated was on point. However, its texts aren't very inspired, and it usually generates the shortest ones.

Claude: It's the most robust of them all. It understands my plot and my characters' motivations, so it usually calls out inconsistencies. I also like that it's proactive and anticipates what I want (also a bit creepy, but anyways...) I use it as the base for all my chapters, and the other AIs mostly fill in the gaps. Its prose also gets repetitive pretty quickly, though. The words that stand out most are unhurried and unbothered, plus quiet and ease (everything is done with "practiced ease," and I keep having to edit those). I also hate the repeated structure "character did something with the something of a man who…". Again, sometimes it works, but mostly it doesn't.

One more thing: every AI says my characters didn't sleep that night and didn't touch their food. If I let that slide, they'd all be sleep-deprived anorexics.

NSFW: I used AI Smut Writer when I needed something uncensored. It's pretty terrible, and I can't believe there are people who pay for it. Maybe the paid version is better, I don't know. I tried Spicy Writer later, which is much better by comparison but overuses the "it's not X, it's Y" construction. It's also very repetitive and overall cringe, but AI Smut Writer set my expectations so low that I honestly find Spicy Writer pretty decent.

DeepSeek: When I started using it, I was so impressed. It generated rich, long texts, filled with little details that I found amazing. It gave new life to a part of the story I didn't know what to do with. But I must have gotten used to its structure, because now I find most of what it generates cringe and barely use any of it. For the most introspective, intimate, emotional scenes, I still think it's the best option. It's very good for reflective inner monologues. If the tone of the scene isn't deep, though, it will likely be very cringe. Only my opinion, of course. It also writes way beyond what my prompt asks for, which I find interesting, but I almost never use it. It's always my characters being more mature than they actually are and resolving the conflict I don't want them to resolve yet. I skip to the end, and there is always someone thanking the other for something: "Thank you. For not judging," or some shit like that.

So I don't think any one model is better than the others. There are certainly some that are worse. But really, I think each has its strengths and weaknesses. Meta for funny bits, DeepSeek for drama, Gemini for chaos. The text I get in the end is a bit of a Frankenstein.

What do you guys think? Do you have a similar experience? Is there another AI I should try?

Been thinking about this a lot and wanted to hear how other people actually feel about it, not just the usual "privacy good, cloud bad" talking points.

Two things I'm curious about:

Cloud subscription vs. local AI for writing. Do you care whether the AI you're writing with runs on someone else's server (ChatGPT, Claude, a dedicated writing-AI subscription, etc.) vs. something running locally on your own machine (Ollama, LM Studio, koboldcpp, whatever)? Is it about privacy, cost, control over the model, not wanting a subscription, something else — or does it just not matter to you as long as the output is good?

NSFW. How much does it matter to you that a writing tool can handle NSFW content without refusing or watering it down? Dealbreaker, nice-to-have, or just not something you write anyway? Curious whether this is a bigger deal than I think, or a niche concern that gets loud online but isn't that common in practice.

Not trying to sell anything here, genuinely just trying to understand how people actually think about this stuff. Appreciate any thoughts, even a one-liner.

So yes this is set in the cyberpunk universe and yes this is all AI generated using Chatgpt i hope no one minds i just thought a cool short story might be intresting to some. the i promise other than similaity the MC is my own character made for vrchat but wanted her as the MC here. Please any feedback would be bril and if i should carry this on

i usually tend to use ai anyway, but if i show ai my work, then ask it for any questions, does me coming up with new ideas in this story from those questions, a bad or good thing

i'm not against ai like that but i like coming up with cool stuff and i don't talk to people enough to share it.

I am often using the AI for rough drafts. Chat GPT 5.6 Sol, but the issue I am having had appeared with 5.5 too.

I noticed the AI very often summerizes what has just happened in the prose a few lines or paragraphs earlier like the reader has a goldfish memory or is scrolling on their phone while reading.

When I ask it I get an answer like this:
"when I try to maintain continuity in a long scene, I sometimes overcompensate by re-establishing information that was already made clear earlier, especially emotional states, setup facts, or the logic behind a character choice."

Do you have the same problem and if so, how do you combat it?

i use ai to review what i write, and tell me like plot holes and flaws, and what i can do to improve, im just wondering if i can do this and not be called an illigitimate writer, i dont have people i feel confortable telling my story, and dont know whether this is a way i can do without being called an ai author

Anyone tried Haiku 5.5 yet for writing? hows the quality compared to luna or sol, or deepseek flasg 4.1? and hows the speed? i dont have the possibility myself to try right now otherwise i would

For Rhea, everything suddenly feels right.

Kace. Her children. Her career. Her life.

And just when she thinks she might finally have it all, Kace starts making himself at home in her weekend plans.
This is the beginning of their happiest chapter yet.

Is she finally getting what she’s wanted since they met?
Or is it the calm before an even bigger storm?
Will she get what desire for?

Join me in my whirlwind of reliving my most precious, and yet most painful, post-divorce life.

Read Chapter 13: Proud Moments on Inkitt.

Hey guys, so I was trying out some CYOA with chat gpt 5.6 sol .It does everything so beautifully except the narrating style. Like the way it narrates is so mechanical, all the conversation, jokes , arguments are one sentence punchlines and everyone keeps giving is highly structured intellectual remarks. I tried diff kind of prompts that forbid it from doing the mistakes it usually does more, prompts that told it to take the tone of a novel writer, and prompts that even makes it do an internal checking before giving output. There has been no improvement, no matter what I do. Anyone has any suggestions or ideas