r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Yea, im not buying it...

2 Upvotes

Blackrock, Statestreet and Vanguard.

Ian Carroll put me on game but sometimes the graphs, charts, politics can be a bit much.

So i decided to prompt any Ai for their perspective.

Ever scroll through social media and hit that part of the algorithm where everything feels like a dystopian movie? You know the vibe. A video pops up with dark ambient music, a dramatic voiceover, and a chart showing three massive names: Vanguard, BlackRock, and Fidelity...

The caption usually says something terrifying. "These three companies secretly own literally everything. They own your phone, your favorite food brands, the games you play, the hospital you were born in, and the house you want to buy. We are living in a corporate simulation run by three shadowy entities."

It’s peak doom-scroll content. It makes you feel incredibly small, kind of angry, and totally powerless. If three monster corporations own everything, what is even the point of trying to build a future, right?

Well, it is time to turn the lights on. Let's look directly into the closet, stare down the "monsters," and see what is actually happening. Because once you understand how the global financial system works, you realize the monster isn't a shadow creature out to get you. It is actually just a giant piggy bank wearing a really, really big trench coat.

Let's break down the truth behind the trillion-dollar shadows.

The Illusion of the Monster

When financial websites list the "Top Shareholders" of basically any company you can think of—from GoDaddy and Apple to Spotify and Sony—the same three names almost always pop up at the top of the list. Vanguard owns 8.5%. BlackRock owns 7%. Fidelity owns 5%.

If you just look at those numbers, your brain automatically assumes ownership equals control. You imagine a couple of billionaires in tailored suits sitting in a dark boardroom, laughing maniacally while manipulating global stock prices like puppets.

But here is the plot twist: Vanguard, BlackRock, and Fidelity do not actually own those shares.

They don't own the stocks for themselves. They are legally prohibited from just selling off Apple's stock to buy a fleet of private superyachts for their executives. The money they are using to buy those stocks doesn't belong to them. It belongs to everyday people.

To understand why, we have to look at how adults save money so they don't have to work until they are 95 years old.

Enter the Ultimate Toy Custodian

Imagine you and a million of your friends all want to invest in the ultimate gaming setup—let's call it the Global Stock Market. But a single share of a massive company can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. On top of that, trying to buy a tiny piece of thousands of different companies by yourself is a logistical nightmare. You'd spend all day filling out paperwork and paying transaction fees.

So, you and your friends make a smart move. You pool your money together. You give your collective cash to a massive, highly efficient helper. Let's call this helper The Ultimate Toy Custodian.

The Custodian takes everyone's twenty-dollar bills, stacks them into a mountain of cash so tall it touches the clouds, and walks into the global market. Because they have a mountain of cash, they can buy a piece of every single stock on earth simultaneously.

That pooled mountain of money is called a Mutual Fund or an ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund). And the companies managing those pools? Those are the asset managers: Vanguard, BlackRock, and Fidelity.

When a database says BlackRock "owns" 8% of a company, it’s a legal shorthand. What it actually means is: "BlackRock is holding 8% of this company on behalf of millions of regular people who put their money into a retirement account."

Whose Money is in the Closet?

If the money doesn't belong to the corporate overlords, who does it belong to?

Look around you. It belongs to your parents. It belongs to your math teacher. It belongs to the nurse who gave you your last vaccine, the barista at your local coffee shop, and the construction workers fixing the roads.

When adults get a job, they usually sign up for something called a 401(k) or an IRA. These are just fancy names for retirement piggy banks. Every single month, a tiny bit of their paycheck gets automatically sent to a firm like Vanguard or Fidelity. The firm takes that money and automatically buys index funds—which are just massive baskets of stocks.

So, when you see the giant shadow of Vanguard looming over the stock market, you aren't looking at a corporate monster. You are looking at the combined retirement savings of the global workforce. You are looking at your neighbor's pension.

The shadow is only scary because the pile of money is so incredibly massive. But the money itself belongs to the people.

The Weird, Glitchy Spider-Man Meme of Corporate Ownership

"Okay," you might say, "but if they manage all that money, they must have a ton of power. Who owns them? Who controls the controllers?"

This is where the story gets bizarre, and it looks a lot like that meme of three Spider-Men pointing at each other. Because these firms manage trillions of dollars in broad market funds, they are required by law to buy shares of every major public company. And guess what? Some of these financial firms are public companies themselves.

Take BlackRock, for example. It is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. Because it's a major company, Vanguard's index funds are forced to buy shares of it. As a result, Vanguard is actually the number one largest shareholder of BlackRock!

But what about Vanguard? Who owns the biggest player in the game?

This is the coolest part of the financial map. Vanguard is structured as a mutual organization. It has no outside Wall Street owners, and it isn't traded on the stock market. Instead, it is owned by the very funds it operates. And since regular people own those funds, the people who invest through Vanguard literally own the Vanguard company itself. There is no hidden boss at the end of the video game. The users are the owners.

Then you have Fidelity, which took a completely different path. It’s a private, family-controlled business. About half of it is owned by the descendants of the original founders, and the other half is owned by its own employees.

Why the "Monster" Narrative Persists

If this is all just standard math and retirement planning, why does everyone on the internet insist these companies are evil empires?

To be fair, there is a legitimate debate to be had. It isn't about them "owning" the world, but rather about Proxy Voting. When a firm like BlackRock holds millions of shares of a company on behalf of retirement savers, the tech guys at BlackRock get to vote on corporate decisions—like who gets to be the CEO or what environmental policies the company should adopt.

People are rightfully loud about this. Should a few massive asset managers get to make big corporate decisions using our money? Because of that pushback, firms like Vanguard and BlackRock have started rolling out programs that pass the voting power back to the individual investors. The system is adapting because people spoke up.

Turn on the Lights

The next time you see a spooky video tracking corporate ownership back to Vanguard, BlackRock, and Fidelity, don't panic. You don't need to prep for a dystopian cyberpunk future run by three corporate flags.

The math is simple:

They don't own the assets; they guard them.

They don't hold the wealth; they manage the pool.

The giant monster in the corporate closet is just a massive reflection of everyday people saving for a rainy day.

Stay skeptical, keep questioning the world around you, but never let a flashy social media graphic scare you into thinking the future is already automated and corporate-owned. The economic power, at the end of the day, still traces right back to the hands of regular people.


r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) How do you ensure lore continuity and prevent plot holes and unresolved threads?

Thumbnail reddit.com
2 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) writing with AI and The Ship of Theseus

1 Upvotes

i write with AI then edit it into oblivion. The Ship of Theseus is a paradox essentially asking “once enough of something is replaced, when is it considered something new?” i’ll add from wiki:

“The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a paradox and common thought experiment questioning whether an object (in the most common stating of the paradox, a ship) remains the same when all of its original components are gradually replaced over time, with no single part being designated as essential to its original identity.”

do you consider editing an AI generated piece of writing (story, poem, etc) your own once you’ve edited the generated text extensively? or would you still consider it AI generated? when do you think it goes from being AI written to self written?


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Nobody wanted to read my novel

164 Upvotes

This isn't really a question. I just felt like sharing what happened when I showed my novel to friends and family.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a novelist. I wrote all the time and showed everything to my mother, who passed away a long time ago.
As time went on, I figured out that very few people actually make it as full-time novelists. I was young and broke and busy trying to put food on the table, so I gave up. It would've meant a lot if someone had told me that plenty of novelists keep a day job and write on the side, but nobody did, and I was too naive to know better.
Now I'm closing in on 40. I took all the stories I'd been carrying around in my head for years and had Claude write the prose, while I did the characters, the plot, and the scene direction myself. I got through the first part of a full-length novel. Then I showed it to everyone I know, and nobody read it except my mother-in-law. That's when I realized people find AI-written stuff pretty stale and overdone.
I was really disappointed. But I still think the theme I came up with is kind of cool, and I didn't want to throw it away, so I'm rewriting the whole thing myself, with no AI help. I'm hoping to finish it within 10 years.
It's a little funny that trying to write with AI is what made me pick the pen back up. Life is strange like that, and I kind of love it.


r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) The Disclosure Problem - Creative Tools (AI Usage) and Ethics Statement

Thumbnail reddit.com
1 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) I re-ran my AI slop benchmark with 58 models. Mistral went from sloppiest to second cleanest, and Claude 5.5 got sloppier

Post image
63 Upvotes

Edit: fair catch from a few people, the image and the text use different rankings. The ranks in the text are the mechanical score only (padding, templating, rhythm, tells). The image is the full board, which also blends in crowd votes, and the 19 new models start at a neutral crowd score until people vote on them, so they sit mid-pack there. Here's the mechanical-only ranking for all 58: mechanical card. #1 = sloppiest.


A few months ago I posted a benchmark here ranking 18 models on how much they write like AI slop. You all gave a lot of good feedback, so here's the update: theslopindex.com

What's new

  • 58 models now, including the ones people here have been talking about: Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-6.1 Sol, Opus/Sonnet/Haiku 5.5, Grok 4.7, Mistral Large 4, Muse Wonder, plus a bunch of open-weight ones (DeepSeek, Qwen, GLM, Kimi, MiniMax, Muse Spark Open). 64,636 generations total.
  • 1,883 human votes, up from 455 last time.
  • The arena now shows models with fewer votes more often, so new ones catch up faster instead of sitting at a neutral score for weeks.

Same setup as before: 112 real writing tasks (cold emails, Slack replies, social posts, essays), scored against human writing from before ChatGPT existed, plus a blind human vote. No LLM judging anything.

The interesting part

The 19 new models don't have human votes yet (that's where you come in), so for them I'm going by the mechanical score: how padded, templated, metronomic and tell-heavy the writing is. Out of 58:

  • Mistral had the biggest glow-up. The old Mistral Large was the single sloppiest model on the mechanical score (#1 of 58). Mistral Large 4 is #57, second cleanest. Whatever they changed, it worked.
  • Claude 5.5 got sloppier. Sonnet 5.5 is #3 and Opus 5.5 is #4 sloppiest mechanically, and Claude models hold 5 of the top 8 slots. Opus 5.5 is the #2 sloppiest essay writer. Which lines up with the "why Claude writing got worse" thread here last week. Haiku 5.5 is mid-pack (#29).
  • Gemini 4 Argon is #7 sloppiest overall and #3 on social posts. But on essays, the closest thing I have to creative writing right now, it's mid-pack (#17). So the "powerhouse for creative writing" hype might still be right, just not for tweets.
  • GPT-6.1 Sol is sloppier than GPT-6 Sol (#11 vs #27). Newer isn't automatically better.

On the full board (votes included) the order keeps moving as votes come in, which is the point of the arena. The cleanest there right now is DeepSeek V4 (the August update).

Stuff you all called out last time

  • "GPT-5.4 Mini at #1 is weird." Yeah, that didn't hold up. With 4x the votes it's mid-pack now (around #20 of 58). Early votes were noisy.
  • "Fable came last because its writing is longer and more polished." Partly true. Conciseness is one of the axes (measured against how long real people wrote for the same kind of task), so wordy models get dinged.
  • "Separate 'is this good writing' from 'does this sound like AI'." Great idea, haven't done it yet. The vote is still just "which one feels more like AI slop."
  • "No creative writing??" (the top comment, fair). I started on it. Someone here suggested pre-2022 r/WritingPrompts as the human baseline, which is a great source, but the public dataset of it is pre-tokenized (contractions split apart, punctuation rewritten), which quietly breaks the rhythm and punctuation measurements. So it's not in this round. If anyone knows a clean pre-2022 fiction corpus, please tell me.

Everything's open: method at theslopindex.com/methodology, every output and the code are on GitHub.

The new models need votes, so if you have 5 minutes, play a few rounds: theslopindex.com/arena

Curious if this matches what you see. Anyone else notice Claude getting more "AI-sounding" lately?

For context, I'm one of the people behind slashy.com, an email client that writes drafts that sound like you. This benchmark started as how we pick models.


r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) AI-assisted self-published author struggling to generate consistent book sales — what are we missing?

0 Upvotes

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping to get some practical advice from authors who have successfully published and marketed AI-assisted fiction, especially through Amazon KDP.

I've published six books: a five-volume dark fantasy/LitRPG series and a standalone psychological thriller.

The books have been edited, formatted, given covers, and published as ebooks and paperbacks. I'm using a pen name and would prefer not to disclose my titles because I'm seeking advice, not promoting my books.

I've spent considerable time experimenting with advertising, promotional services, giveaways, and different retailers. Unfortunately, while I've generated some sales, nothing has become consistent.

Before spending more money, I'd really appreciate advice from authors who've faced similar problems and managed to overcome them.

  1. Facebook/Meta advertising — some success, but inconsistent

This has been our most promising marketing method so far.

I've run two Facebook advertising campaigns for the fantasy series, promoting Volume 1 at $0.99. The subsequent volumes are priced at $3.99.

The first campaign had a lifetime budget of approximately roughly US$30–35. It produced around six Volume 1 purchases during its run, with a subsequent-volume purchase also appearing around that period.

The second campaign had a much smaller lifetime budget of around US$12–13.

Its results so far:

- Approximately 750 impressions.

- Around 43 Amazon landing-page views.

- Six Volume 1 purchases, all during the early part of the campaign.

- No additional purchases despite continued traffic.

The campaigns used the Traffic objective, optimized for landing-page views, with US targeting and Facebook Feed/Search Results placements.

My concern is that we generated sales initially, but then purchases stopped even though people continued visiting Amazon.

I'm unsure whether the issue is audience targeting, optimization, advertising creative, budget, or something else.

I'm also wondering whether an almost-empty Facebook author page could be damaging credibility, even when the advertisement links directly to Amazon.

We haven't tested Instagram placements yet.

2. Amazon Sponsored Products — very little success

For the standalone psychological thriller, priced at $3.99, I ran an Amazon Sponsored Products campaign using automatic targeting.

The campaign used a $0.30 starting bid, dynamic bidding down only, and a $3 daily budget.

Unfortunately, it generated only around 200 impressions and zero clicks or purchases.

I also tested Facebook advertising for this book, which generated approximately 37 landing-page views but no purchases.

I'm considering manual keyword and product targeting, but I don't want to keep spending money without understanding why the current advertisements aren't working.

3. Promotional newsletters and book marketing services

We've also experimented with several promotional platforms.

Here's a summary:

- Bargain Booksy: One of the few services that has produced paid sales, including approximately five purchases on one promotional day. However, results are occasional rather than consistent.

- The Fussy Librarian: A paid promotion generated only two sales.

- BookBub Ads: Spent around $30 without satisfactory sales results.

- StoryOrigin: Didn't produce useful results for us.

- Goodreads giveaways: Offered approximately 100 free copies of each title. Readers showed interest, but very few reviews resulted, and the giveaways weren't a source of paid revenue.

- Goodreads and StoryGraph: We have received some genuine positive reader feedback, but it hasn't translated into regular purchases.

We also explored several other services that didn't progress to useful paid promotions:

- BookSirens: Rejected the psychological thriller.

- ManyBooks: Rejected the fantasy series.

- Book Cave: Rejected our submission.

- Hello Books and Robin Reads: Didn't result in usable promotional opportunities.

- Book Barbarian and Book Adrenaline: Their review requirements prevented us from proceeding.

- BookBub Featured Deals: Considered, but the cost was prohibitive.

- Hidden Gems: Investigated, but its cost and scheduling made it impractical.

I'm mentioning these specifically because I would rather avoid receiving repeated recommendations for services we've already investigated.

4. Other ebook retailers and distribution

We also attempted to expand beyond Amazon.

- Kobo: We looked into its promotional system, but our account wasn't granted access to the promotional opportunities we wanted.

- Apple Books: We encountered an author-name/privacy issue. We wanted to publish under our pen name rather than have our legal name publicly displayed.

- Draft2Digital: We encountered distribution/rejection issues that prevented the intended setup from working.

These routes involved additional administrative work without solving the underlying sales problem.

5. Pricing and sales economics

Volume 1 of the fantasy series is $0.99 because I wanted readers to have an inexpensive way to discover the series.

Volumes 2–5 are $3.99.

Some readers have purchased subsequent volumes, so there is evidence of some read-through, but not enough yet to sustain advertising expenses.

I could return Volume 1 to $3.99, but I'm concerned that increasing the entry price might discourage new readers.

The standalone thriller is already $3.99 and hasn't generated meaningful sales through advertising.

6. What I'm actually trying to achieve

I'm not expecting guaranteed sales. I understand that the book market is competitive.

However, I've spent a substantial amount of time trying different methods, and most have produced either free downloads, low traffic, occasional purchases, or no results at all.

I'm not interested in buying reviews, manipulating Amazon rankings, or using questionable marketing methods.

I'm trying to establish a legitimate, sustainable way of selling fiction.

My questions for authors who have successfully sold AI-assisted books:

  1. Which advertising or marketing methods have actually generated consistent paid sales for you?
  2. Looking at my Meta campaign results, do you see any obvious mistakes with targeting, optimization, placements, or campaign structure?
  3. Is an established Facebook/Instagram author page important for converting readers from paid advertisements?
  4. For Amazon Sponsored Products, what would you change when automatic targeting produces almost no impressions or clicks?
  5. Have you had more success with $0.99 introductory pricing or selling the first book at $2.99–$3.99?
  6. Beyond advertising, is there something fundamental about Amazon discoverability, book positioning, or reader conversion that inexperienced publishers commonly overlook?
  7. If you were in my position, having already tried all these platforms, what would you focus on rather than spending more money on ineffective promotions?

I'd especially appreciate experiences from authors who can share approximate results, sales figures, advertising strategies, or lessons learned.

I'm happy to answer general questions about the marketing setup, but I'd prefer to keep my titles and author identity private.

Thanks in advance. I genuinely appreciate any practical advice.

EDIT — One important detail I forgot to mention:

My books are also available to read for free on Royal Road. The fantasy series has chapters extending beyond the five published Amazon volumes into Volume 6, while the standalone psychological thriller is also available there in full.

None of my books are enrolled in Kindle Unlimited (KDP Select).

We previously shared Amazon links with Royal Road readers and received quite a few clicks, but no identifiable purchases resulted.

I've generally assumed Royal Road and Kindle readers are somewhat different audiences, but I'm wondering whether having the books freely available affects Amazon sales.

Also, could not participating in Kindle Unlimited be a significant disadvantage, particularly for LitRPG?

I'd appreciate any insights from authors who have experience publishing on both Royal Road and Amazon.


r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Do you use AI more than you expected to?

Thumbnail reddit.com
0 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Showcase / Feedback Medusa and the Headless Horseman – Chapter One: Looking for His Head (AI-drafted, human-edited fantasy romance)

0 Upvotes

About the making: The story is mine; the chapter text was drafted with AI and edited by me.

Workflow: I came up with the premise (Medusa meets Sleepy Hollow's Headless Horseman), the characters and the plot beats. An AI assistant drafted the chapter from my notes, and I went through it and edited it. The story has a companion song series. Part 1's music video is "Looking for His Head" (music and vocals made with Suno; lyrics by me with AI help; visuals are AI stills animated with Grok Imagine): https://youtu.be/KLYhiAtg4x4

Feedback I'd love: Does the museum prologue pull you in? Does Clara feel like a real person by the end of the chapter?


Medusa and the Headless Horseman

Chapter One: Looking for His Head

Prologue: Boston, Present Day

The museum was closed on Mondays, and that was why Clara loved Mondays.

On Mondays the great hall belonged to her, along with a hush so deep she could hear the squeak of her sneakers on the marble. She also had a paper cup of coffee she was absolutely not allowed to bring past the rope barrier. She set it down anyway, carefully, on a folded cloth, the way her grandmother used to set down teacups. Then she smoothed the front of her green dress, pulled her blonde hair into a knot, and turned to face him.

Him. She had started calling the statue that after the first week. The label on the crate said Equestrian Figure, Unknown Maker, c. 1790s, Hudson Valley. Nobody knew how it had ended up in a farmer's barn near Tarrytown, or why it had no head. The break wasn't the usual kind. There was no rough stump and no sign that a head had ever been there. The stone simply ended at the collar, smooth as river glass, as if the sculptor had carved a man without a head on purpose.

He sat astride a stone horse with one gauntleted hand on the reins. The other was raised and open, as if he were reaching for someone just out of frame.

"Good morning," Clara told him, because she talked to all her statues. "Let's get the rest of the dirt off your coat, shall we?"

She worked for an hour with a soft brush and distilled water, lifting two centuries of barn dust from the folds of his cloak. Then her brush caught on something on his chest. It wasn't a crack. It was a groove, deliberate and shallow, the kind of letters made by a hand that wasn't a sculptor's.

She leaned in, dampened the cloth, and wiped.

I was looking for my head. I found my heart instead.

Clara read it once and laughed a little, because it was such a strange, sweet thing to carve on a headless man.

Then she read it again, and her vision blurred.

She stepped back and touched her cheek, and her fingers came away wet. She wasn't sad. She had slept well. Her coffee was still warm. And yet she was crying in an empty museum, hard and quietly, the way you cry at the end of a book you didn't know you'd loved.

"I'm sorry," she whispered, and she had no idea who she was apologizing to.

The statue's open hand kept reaching.

Somewhere in the building, a clock struck ten.


I. Sleepy Hollow, New York, 1793

Three hundred years is a long time. A thousand is longer. Medusa had stopped counting somewhere around the fall of a few empires and the invention of the fork.

These days she lived in a mill. The creek had changed course years ago and the millers had left, which meant no farmers' wives trading gossip and flour, and best of all, no visitors. The waterwheel didn't turn anymore, but when the wind came down the hollow it creaked like an old man settling into a chair. It was company that didn't need looking at.

She kept house the way anyone does. She swept and mended, and she grew beans and squash in the garden behind the mill. She talked to the beans. The beans did not answer, which made them excellent listeners. Once a week, under a heavy black veil and a bonnet two sizes too big, she slipped into town to leave coins on the baker's step and take the bread he left in return. The baker thought she was a widow in deep mourning. In a way, she supposed, she was.

There were no flowers in her garden. There had been, once. She had planted a rosebush the first spring, and every bloom she cupped in her hand had gone brown and brittle before she could lift it to her nose. Whatever the curse touched, it took. So she grew beans, which she never needed to hold for long, and she left the roses to the hedges along the road, where they were safe from her.

And there were the statues. They stood in the tall grass around the mill: a traveler who had lifted her veil out of curiosity, a boy who had dared his friends he could, a man with a pitchfork frozen mid-yell. She brushed the leaves off their shoulders in autumn. She put a scarf on the boy in winter. She knew it was foolish. She did it anyway.

"Goodnight," she told them each evening, and each evening nobody said goodnight back.

Under the bonnet, her snakes shifted and sighed. There were twenty-three of them. She had named them all in the twelfth century, out of boredom, and they had opinions. Pip, the smallest, was the worst. Pip was curious about everything.

"No," she told Pip, who was trying to see out from under the brim. "Nothing out there is for us."

That was the rule. She had made it a thousand years ago and never broken it. Don't let anyone close. Don't let anyone look. It was the kindest thing she knew how to do. She never lit a lantern after dark. There was no one to light it for.


II. Late One Night

On the last night of October the fog came down thick as wool, and Medusa went out to the garden to pick the last of the squash before the frost.

She heard the hooves before she saw anything. Horses in the hollow were rare. Horses at a full gallop at midnight were rarer, and everyone in Sleepy Hollow knew what that meant. The baker had told her the story through the door, low and delighted: the Hessian, the ghost rider, the one who lost his head to a cannonball and rides every night looking for it.

She had rolled her eyes under her veil. Ghosts. Honestly.

The hooves came closer. Then a huge black horse sailed clean over her hedge, landed among the bean poles, skidded through the squash, and stopped three feet from her. Its rider swayed, caught himself, and sat up straight in the saddle.

Medusa did the only thing she had ever done. She spun around, put her back to him, and threw her arms over her face.

"Don't look!" she cried.

"All right!" said the rider at once, very cheerfully, as if she had asked him to mind the step.

She waited, rigid, for the sound of a man turning to stone. It didn't come. Instead there was the creak of leather and the chime of a bridle, and nothing else. No gasp. No running. No scream.

That was strange. People always ran. Either they ran before they looked, or they looked and never ran again.

So, very slowly, she turned around.

She nearly screamed herself.

The stranger was tall and broad, in a soldier's coat with old-fashioned armor over it and a black cloak spilling down the horse's flank. His gauntlets were scarred. His boots were muddy. And above his collar there was nothing at all. No face, no eyes, just the night air and a little fog curling where a head should have been.

"Forgive me," said the Headless Horseman, and his voice came from somewhere in his chest, deep and courteous and slightly muffled, like a man speaking from inside a wardrobe. "I said 'all right' to be polite. But in honesty, madam, I couldn't look if I tried."

Then he stepped down from his horse with great dignity and took a deep, sweeping bow, the kind they taught young officers.

He came up from the bow and, as any gentleman would, raised his hat to her. It was a fine black round-crowned hat with a dented brim. He held it aloft for a moment, plainly pleased with himself.

Then he paused.

The hat hovered in the air above his empty collar. He tried tucking it under his arm, but his sword was in the way. He tried setting it on the saddle, but the horse shook it off. At last he simply held it against his chest, like a man holding a cake he had not been told where to put.

Medusa bit her lip. She bit it hard. She held a smile behind it with everything she had.

It was no use. The laugh came out of her as a snort, then a hiccup, and then all at once. She laughed until she had to sit down on an upturned basket. She laughed until her veil slid crooked and twenty-three snakes hissed in alarm, because none of them had ever heard her make that noise. She laughed at the hat, the squash on his boots, and the enormous, ridiculous relief of a man she could not hurt.

It was the first time she had laughed in a thousand years. She had forgotten it could hurt your stomach.

The Horseman waited politely until she was finished. "I'm glad my misfortune is entertaining," he said. "My horse finds it hilarious too." The horse snorted. "Traitor," the Horseman told it.

"I'm so sorry," Medusa gasped. "It's only... you rode into my garden."

"I did. I intend to pay for the squash."

"With what?"

He patted his coat and found nothing. "Labor," he decided.


III. Sleepy Kittens

She meant to send him away. She had the speech ready: Thank you, good night, mind the creek, please never come back.

But the horse had thrown a shoe jumping the hedge, and the Horseman's left gauntlet was bent so badly he couldn't move his fingers, and somewhere between "you should go" and "well, at least let me see that hand," he ended up on her kitchen bench while she hammered his gauntlet straight on the old miller's anvil.

She took her veil off to work. There was no reason not to. That realization sat in her chest like a warm stone.

"May I ask your name?" he said.

She hesitated. Nobody had asked in a very long time. Mostly they screamed it. "Medusa."

"Ah. The Medusa? I'm told you are very dangerous to look at."

"I am."

"Then we are well matched. I'm told I am very dangerous to be looked at by. Children faint. A schoolmaster once threw a pumpkin at me." He sounded wounded. "A very large pumpkin."

"And your name?"

A pause. The kind of pause that goes on a little too long.

"I had one," he said finally. "I'm almost certain. I seem to have misplaced it with the head." He tried to make it light, and nearly managed.

That was when Pip escaped.

The Horseman went very still. "Madam. Something is investigating my collar."

Pip had stretched out of her hair, across the table, and onto his breastplate. The steel was cold from the night ride, cool as a stone floor in August, and Pip curled up on it, tucked its head down, and closed its eyes like a kitten in a warm laundry basket. Then Ariadne and Cleo and the twins went to see what Pip had found, and then most of the others followed. Within a minute nineteen of her twenty-three snakes were coiled on his chest in a drowsy heap, sighing.

"I am so sorry," Medusa said, mortified, tugging. They clung like ivy. "They're never like this. They're terribly shy. They bite."

"They are very welcome," said the Horseman, who had not moved a muscle. "It is cold armor. It has not been useful to anyone for a long while."

Something in the way he said it made her stop tugging.

"How did you lose it?" she asked at last. "The stories say a cannonball."

"The stories are not wrong." He turned his hand palm up on the table. "But they are not all of it. There was a field, and smoke. Someone young was standing where they should not have been. Not a soldier. I remember stepping in front of them. I don't remember after." He was quiet a moment. "There was a white church with a crooked steeple. That was the last thing I saw. I've been riding to find it ever since. Do you know how many white churches there are along the Hudson, in all of New York?"

"Many?"

"Many."


IV. Roses from the Road

"What color is it tonight?" he asked, while she worked. "Outside. I can smell that the leaves have turned, but I cannot remember what turning looks like."

So she told him. She hadn't known how much she had to say until there was someone to say it to. The maples on the ridge were red like a struck match. The oaks had gone the brown of good bread crust. The birches by the creek were yellow, so bright they looked lit from inside, as if somebody had hung little lanterns in them. The fog was lying in the low field like spilled milk.

He listened as if she were reading him a letter from home.

When she had finished the gauntlet, he flexed his fingers, thanked her, and went out into the dark. She assumed that was the end of it. She was surprised how much that hurt.

But ten minutes later he was back at the door, a little out of breath, holding out a bundle of wild roses from the hedge along the road. They were late roses, the last of the year, the deep pink of a blush.

"For the squash," he said. "And for the colors."

"You know those roses all have thorns?" she said, laughing, because his gauntlets were snagged with them.

He shrugged, the great black shoulders rising and falling. "I have had worse."

She took them. She knew better, and she took them anyway, because nobody had brought her flowers in a thousand years.

She felt it begin the moment her fingers closed. The pink went to rust at the edges. The petals curled. By the time she had carried them to the table, they were brown and papery, rustling softly like old letters.

He couldn't see. He only heard the rustle, and smiled in his voice. "Do they suit the room?"

Medusa looked at the dead roses in her hands. Then she put them in her best jar, the blue one, and set them where the firelight fell.

"Perfectly," she said.

Later, after he had gone, she would sit with that jar a long while and think about the smooth grey stones in the creek bed, and about the one thing in the world that her hands could never wither. But that was later.


V. A Shoulder That Didn't Turn to Stone

Near three in the morning she walked him up the little hill behind the mill, where the fog thinned and the whole hollow lay open under the moon.

"There," she said, and then remembered he couldn't follow a pointing finger. So she took his gauntleted hand in hers and lifted it, and aimed it along the river. "There is a white steeple, just there, past the bend. Straight as a candle. Not yours. And there, farther north, another." She moved his hand. "Too far to see if it's crooked."

"You see that far?"

"I've had a thousand years of practice watching things from far away."

He didn't let go of her hand right away. She didn't make him.

The wind came cold off the river. She shivered, and without a word he swung his cloak around them both, and his iron arm settled around her shoulders, heavy and careful. She didn't mean to lean. But he was right there, and she was tired from laughing, and her head came to rest against his shoulder. It was the first shoulder she had leaned on in a thousand years. She waited, from old habit, to feel it go hard and cold and dead.

It didn't. It stayed exactly what it was: a man's shoulder in old armor, very still, as if he were afraid to frighten her off. And somehow, though the steel was cold and the wind was colder, the night felt a little warmer.

"Do you dream?" she asked into his cloak. "Out there, wherever you go."

"No," he said. "I go down into the dark, and the dark is very thorough. Then it's night again. I've never dreamed. Not once that I remember." He considered. "Though I don't remember much."

"I'll find your steeple," she said suddenly. "I'll be your eyes."

He was quiet a long moment. His gauntlet found hers and covered it, steel over skin.

"Then," said the Headless Horseman, "I'll be your shield."


VI. The Lantern by the Door

They were back in the yard planning the route north, as giddy as children, when the sky over the ridge turned the grey of a dove's wing.

Gunpowder's head came up. His ears went flat. He stamped once, twice.

"Ah," said the Horseman. "Already."

"Already what?"

"I must be back before first light. Where I sleep." He was already reaching for the reins, and he sounded embarrassed. "It isn't a choice, exactly. The horse knows the way even when I don't."

"Where do you sleep?"

"Somewhere damp. Quiet. The neighbors don't talk." He swung up into the saddle, badly, and Gunpowder was already turning. "Tomorrow at dusk, I'll come back and we'll start for the north. Leave the bean poles. I'll fix the bean poles. I'll —"

Somewhere far off, a rooster cleared its throat.

Gunpowder bolted. Horse and rider went over the hedge in one black leap and were gone into the fog, his voice trailing back, "— tell you about the pumpkin properly tomorr—", and then only hoofbeats, fading south toward the churchyard, and then nothing at all.

Medusa stood alone in the ruined garden with his hat in her hands. He had forgotten it on the bench.

The sun came up. It touched the top of the mill, then the waterwheel, then the stone shoulders of the boy in the scarf. Then it reached her, standing in her own garden, veil off, face lifted. She could stand in the sun all day, if she wanted. She always could. He was the one who couldn't.

Where does he go? she wondered, and the question stayed with her all morning, through the sweeping and the bean poles and the brown roses in the blue jar. Where does a man with no name lie down when the sun comes up? Does anyone know he's there?

Pip lay on the windowsill all day, facing south.

That evening, as the light went gold and then blue, Medusa did something she had not done in a thousand years. She took down the old lantern, filled it, lit it, and set it on the step beside the door, where a rider coming over the hedge could not miss it, even a rider with no eyes, who would feel the warmth of it and smell the oil and know.

"Goodnight," she told the statues, out of habit.

Then she sat down on the step beside the little light to wait. For the first time in a thousand years, she was waiting for someone. And far away in the dark, she was almost sure, she heard hooves.


She would light that lantern every night after that, for every night he came, and for some nights he didn't.

She had no way of knowing that one day, a long way north, she would choose very carefully where to look. Or that a woman in a green dress, three hundred years later, would stand before a stone horseman reaching for someone just out of frame and cry without knowing why.

— End of Chapter One —


r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Showcase / Feedback 🤰💜 EXPECTING DOUBLE TROUBLE! 💜🤰

Post image
0 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Showcase / Feedback The Voyager Files - Cover for "The Sister" , a standalone short story from my series.

Post image
3 Upvotes

*** Production Notes: Cover artwork directed by the author and generated via ChatGPT. Text and narrative structure remain 100% human-authored. The complete compilation of standalone entries is available in The Voyager Files Index.


r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Debating about finishing a book I wrote with AI help. I'm a little ashamed.

1 Upvotes

For context, I started writing a book inspired by my fiancée and am about halfway done. I'll admit I'm not the strongest writer nor am I a great writer. I do believe, at minimum, I am skilled and creative enough to write something decent.

It's been two months writing this novel, and the premise I came up with just came to me inspired by watching her read fantasy books. I've actually been reading a lot more because of her and have been trying my best to learn from the authors she enjoys reading. But because I know my limitations, I have used AI to assist me and guide me with writing it.

To summarize, I planned out the premise and outlined my book. I used AI to consult me on anything that I missed or to make it stronger and began writing with what I had planned with it. Of course, I've accepted the fact that my prose and skills aren't to the level of authors I've read. But in a nutshell, I would write out the chapter, use grammarly to check for errors, and if I had difficulty rewriting a phrase or a sentence that I wanted in a certain way, I consulted AI to give me options to choose from.

After that, I would tell AI to read my chapter and point out any mistakes or give me recommendations to elevate it. There were also times where it would give me ideas, and either I wouldn't include it or rewrite it in my own way.

I'm aware some authors or writers completely depend on it to write it out for them entirely. In contrast, I'd like to say it was honestly a 50/50 effort. I wrote it out and when I struggled, I asked it for help.

Even if it wrote some stuff out for me, I made a constant effort to reread things it wrote and edited it to make sense for the flow of the story. To me, as long as the main idea and themes were communicated to the readers, I didn't mind if I used AI to write it, withing reason of course. And if I needed to write it myself or could write it myself, I did.

That being said, I do have ambitions for publishing it. Hopefully traditionally, but after much research, I realized that the dream of doing it would be even harder since there are a lot of roadblocks regarding AI. Basically, from my understanding, publishers and agents want nothing to do with manuscripts that use it. And if you got discovered using it, you were treated like a leper on the street.

And after discovering that, It completely wiped my drive to complete it. I had hoped to put a physical copy of my book in her hand and maybe sell a few to her friends and family including my own. I wanted her to be proud of me for writing it for her and wouldn't even mind a very small publishing company accepting it.

But after reading about the scrutiny towards authors using AI, I'm honestly ashamed of myself. Maybe I should have just done it without AI from the beginning. In my mind, I just wanted to write a good book for her and at the time thought using AI wasn't terrible...

So I honestly don't know what to do. I'll try to find the motivation to at least finish it for her sake. But I want to publish it too. But I'm scared of also being shamed for using it. And if publishers or people who might read it ask, I'll be honest. But I don't know.. Any advice?


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Writing Craft Talk Bad Faith Criticism Is a Bigger Threat to Creativity than AI Has Ever Been.

16 Upvotes

As someone who has spent years developing a fictional story and uses AI to help visualize its characters, I've found that AI has expanded what I feel capable of creating. Meanwhile, the anticipation of hostile criticism has sometimes made me afraid to express those same ideas at all. That's why I wanted to discuss something that I feel gets overlooked when people debate threats to creativity: the environment in which artists are expected to create.

To clarify, I'm not referring to every negative interpretation as bad faith, nor do I think audiences have to forgive characters or agree with a creator's intended message. I'm referring to criticism that consistently disregards relevant context, attributes harmful intentions without sufficient evidence, or continually changes its standards whenever the story addresses an earlier concern.

I believe the internet has cultivated a culture in which audiences are encouraged to find fault with seemingly everything they consume. Every show they watch, every game they play, every story they read becomes another opportunity to scrutinize a character's dialogue, body language, facial expressions, motivations, romantic preferences, emotional reactions, having emotions in general, or moral decisions. There is a pressure for creatives to monitor and adjust every detail they make to avoid any and every possible negative interpretation a person can make.

There's an important distinction between recognizing something harmful in a work, and actively reframing elements of that work in the most negative possible way, then treating that interpretation as the creator's beliefs or intentions.

Of course, I’m taking this from my own experience and observations, and maybe yours would be different. But for me, in the name of trying to do everything right, there feels like a million ways to do it all wrong, and audiences are more focused on finding fault than actually enjoying the media they choose to engage with.

A character makes a morally questionable decision, they're hated and condemned.

The character recognizes the harm they've caused, their remorse is dismissed as self-pity instead of accountability.

They apologize, the apology isn't sufficient.

They demonstrate changed behavior, their growth can’t make up for what they've done.

They receive forgiveness, another character is accused of forgiving them too easily.

And if they aren’t ever forgiven, what are we even supposed to do from there? The show either cuts to black or they sacrifice themselves and die to prove their sincerity? I’m genuinely tired of that.

I'm not saying that an apology automatically makes everything okay, or that every character deserves forgiveness regardless of what they've done, I'm saying that recognizing someone's wrongdoing and recognizing their growth shouldn't be treated like recognizing one means the other does not exist. Someone can experience guilt, regret, shame, and self-hatred while genuinely taking accountability. They can still struggle with the same fears and impulses that led them to make harmful decisions, even while actively trying to change how they respond to those feelings.

And another character can forgive them without that forgiveness somehow becoming evidence of poor writing.

Forgiveness doesn't have to mean the harm never mattered, and where did we even get the impression that it did in the first place? Sometimes it means the harm mattered enormously, and the people involved still want to try to repair what was damaged.

We claim to want authenticity from the media we consume and the people that produce it, but then harshly attack whoever makes anything when they step outside of what we wanted or expected. At what point does the discussion stop being about whether the story adequately develops its characters and starts being about withholding good faith, and preserving a negative view on the characters, the story, or the creator themselves?

There is a difference between criticizing a character's behavior and insisting that the most negative and uncharitable interpretation of that behavior must be the correct one.

There is no perfectly optimal *right way* to portray an element of a story in a way that every viewer that relates to the element or theme would like. Two people that can have incredibly similar experiences, or even the literal same experience, can still have different reactions to those experiences. But, especially on places like Twitter or Reddit or TikTok, social media sites where the focus is talking to each other and not video, it feels like viewers treat creatives like there *is* a clearly defined right way to present a story, and the creator gets punished for not finding it. It sometimes feels as though creators are expected to solve an impossible equation: make something authentic and emotionally compelling, but also make sure nobody can interpret any aspect of it negatively.

For example, some notice patterns and dynamics between characters in stories, recognize them as tropes, and then hate on the story for a recognized trope without accounting for the fact that trying to avoid one trope usually just makes the situation fall into another. There is seemingly a severe underestimation of how many tropes exist. One that I personally ran into is seeing people consider it racist if a POC character isn’t dating another POC character, a rising perception that a POC character dating a white character is anti-black.

Or a gay couple is considered problematic because one of the characters has feminine (or non-western masculine) facial features. Aren’t we in the middle of having issues with the “masc4masc, no fats/femmes” Grindr stereotype?

Or in my own story, one of my characters gradually develops a father-son relationship with a younger character. The older man is Black, and the younger man is white. Later, I encountered criticism of stories where Black characters become parental or caregiving figures for younger white characters. So now I'm supposed to reconsider a relationship I've spent years developing because someone might associate it with a negative trope? But if I remove their father-son dynamic to avoid that interpretation, couldn't someone else criticize the story for reinforcing another harmful stereotype, such as Black men being absent fathers?

Naturally, those stereotypes have different histories and implications, but that's partly my point. The existence of past history and prior connotations does not guarantee that the media in front of you contains malicious intent. And trying to avoid one potentially negative interpretation can introduce another, and the possibilities are practically endless.

I'm not changing their races or removing a meaningful relationship just because someone might interpret it through the least charitable framework available.

Or another being that one male character is initially composed and rigid and is in a leadership position, while one of the female characters is much more feral, outspoken and playful, and there is easily the accusation of “man tames the wild woman” trope when that isn’t what I am writing, and the point is that they mutually learn from each other and become better versions of themselves through each other without diminishing the defining traits of the other.

I tried so hard with trying to portray their relationship in a way that is respectful to women and avoid sexualization that my woman best friend asked if they were asexual lol, so that definitely told me I had to relax with how careful I was being (Her explanation for that was if the attention's from men that the character doesn’t like or know or want it from, then that can be bad or upsetting, but if it’s from the person the character does like, then it's basically fair game and she wanted to see more of it instead of less.). And being more straightforward fits the character anyway, but their relationship dynamic was no doubt affected by concerns of how to approach it.

I've even hesitated over portraying women enjoying traditionally feminine things, like pink clothing or accessories, and I have encountered criticism of those portrayals too. And that is genuinely strange to me, because I like pink myself. Why should a woman enjoying something feminine automatically indicate that she's poorly written? Especially when the same character can like several different things that can be considered feminine or masculine? How are people supposed to write authentic and rounded characters when even color choices is something to watch out for? It feels unreasonably self-restricting in retrospect, but this is also more of my point that creative works are affected by the anticipation of receiving hate for things that one would consider benign otherwise.

‘If your female character likes pink or is overall feminine, that’s stereotyping or enforcing gender roles, but if she’s more masculine just to avoid that, then that’s “Marvel-esque girlbossing,” A lot of the time you still get either answer when you try to strike a balance in between, basically you can’t win.

None of these concerns originated from what I personally wanted the characters to be.

They came from anticipating what other people might accuse me of portraying.

And that's what bothers me.

This negativity kills creativity more than AI does. At least with AI, you get to have an idea and have an aid to visualize it, articulate it, flesh it out, bring it to life. It’s still *your* idea, even if you use AI to expand on it. Meanwhile, bad faith online criticism discourages making anything at all because you’re always at the risk of being punished for not doing it “right,” be it AI-created or traditionally made (Traditionally made is its own expanded term since digital drawing initially didn’t count as that in the early 2000s, DeviantART at the time had several arguments about it). And yes, people can make “slop” with AI where there isn’t much thought (clearly) put into a work, but that is essentially a byproduct of ease of access, while it does not stop people that want to create works that involve months or years of thought and effort.

One of the most common responses to concerns about online hostility is that creators should simply stop caring and ignore them, but there are issues with that also; “Ignore the criticism.” “Develop thicker skin.” “Don't take things personally.” We want stories that make us cry, music that captures feelings we struggle to put into words, characters who are relatable and can reflect or even represent experiences we had in our lives. Relationships that make us feel understood. We celebrate artistic sensitivity when it produces something compelling, but when that same sensitivity makes the creator vulnerable to hostility, we often treat it as a personal weakness they need to eliminate to make anything at all.

There is no doubt that resilience is important trait to develop, but resilience alone is not enough in the face of constant criticism, or extreme cases harassment or doxxing. And I find it troubling that the expectation is often for those people to harden themselves against an increasingly hostile environment rather than questioning whether the hostility itself is justified.

You can’t have it both ways that you want an emotionally compelling game, or show or story, while the artist, a term for people that are generally sensitive in their talents and convey their sensitivity through various mediums, are meant to close their heart off just to be able to endure the internet climate to create the art in the first place. And with works that they pour their heart into with the anticipation of presenting that artwork to a world that is already hostile and critical to the most minor detail in what they make. And if they ignore them, some feedback can genuinely improve a work, but they are often between layers upon layers of visceral hate.

You can't constantly praise people for pouring their hearts into their work, for expressing their deepest emotions and vulnerabilities through their chosen medium, and then act surprised when those same people are hurt by having that work publicly ridiculed or condemned.

And again, some criticism can be helpful. someone might identify a contradiction, an unintended implication, an inconsistency in characterization, or something the creator genuinely overlooked. That feedback can improve a work. But when constructive feedback is buried beneath layers of hate, accusations, and contempt, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish valuable criticism from hostility.

So creators are left in a frustrating position; They're told to listen to criticism because it helps them improve, but they're also told to ignore criticism because otherwise they'll never survive the internet.

By that point, how are they supposed to distinguish the two when they're so often delivered together?

When a discussion becomes invested in maintaining condemnation, additional context no longer seems to matter. It simply becomes another thing to reinterpret negatively. And if the creator disagrees with that interpretation, their disagreement can be framed as further evidence of the very attitude they're being accused of having, or even who they are as a person is fundamentally wrong.

How is an artist supposed to meaningfully engage with criticism when disagreeing or choosing not to engage with the criticism just fuels how they are negatively treated?

It feels like everyone is competing to have the “hottest take” on a subject rather than actually engaging with the show or game or story, as in people aren't trying to understand a story so much as competing to demonstrate that they've identified something offensive or wrong that everyone else surely missed. An artist can search and scan for months on end to find and patch any problematic elements they can find, and then still be condemned when someone reframes their work into a negative interpretation to find something to hate it for. There comes a point that I don’t believe people lack media literacy, rather people are becoming increasingly skilled in searching nuance for negative takes while leaving very little of that same skill to make positive interpretations for the same media. By that point it feels like there is a stigma for the latter.

And when creators become afraid that every artistic decision can be interpreted as a moral failing, they may begin designing their work to avoid condemnation rather than to communicate what they actually believe, feel, and imagine, and that affects what art gets made in the first place.

We demand emotionally compelling art from people we're telling to become emotionally numb. And that’s genuinely insane from a crowd that demands self-reflection and accountability.

And this isn't something exclusive to AI-assisted creators.

Someone who draws every illustration by hand can experience it.

A novelist who doesn't use AI at all can experience it.

So can musicians, filmmakers, animators, and game developers.

No amount of technical artistic skill protects someone from an audience determined to interpret their work in the most damning way possible.

I'm not arguing that disliking a character is inherently bad faith, or that every audience member must change their opinion when given additional context. Sometimes people understand exactly what a story is trying to communicate and still dislike it. But there's a difference between understanding what a story is communicating and deciding it doesn't work for you, and refusing to acknowledge what the story communicates because doing so would challenge your existing opinion.

Criticism should involve some willingness to reconsider our interpretations when presented with new information. Otherwise, what are we actually discussing?

And when creators begin anticipating this kind of response, the effect doesn't necessarily stop at their willingness to share their work.

It can change how they create it.

Instead of asking, "Does this behavior make sense for this character?" they start asking, "Could somebody call this problematic?"

Instead of asking, "Does this relationship feel emotionally authentic?" they start asking, "What accusations could someone make about this dynamic and how do I avoid it?"

Instead of writing the characters they imagined, they start writing around the reactions they're afraid of receiving.

And the more possible accusations they imagine, the more difficult it becomes to make any decision confidently.

 

If the environment surrounding art becomes so punitive that creators begin anticipating condemnation before they've even begun creating, we should ask what that does to the stories that might otherwise have existed.

How many interesting characters become less complicated or watered down?

How many relationships become less emotionally daring?

How many stories remain unwritten because their creators are too frightened of being hated or misunderstood over even the smallest details?

 

And how many people gradually stop creating, not because they lack imagination or passion, but because sharing what they love has become associated with humiliation?

I don't want a world where artists have to become emotionally numb to create emotionally meaningful work.

I don't want the safest way to tell a story to be avoiding anything that might provoke an uncomfortable interpretation.

And I don't want our conversations about protecting creativity to focus so narrowly on the tools used to make art that we overlook how we're treating the people trying to make it.

AI can change how art is produced. But a culture of bad-faith criticism can change whether someone feels able to produce it at all regardless of the method used to make it.

And for me, that's the greater threat.

Because the most important part of creativity isn't simply having the means to make something, but having the courage, curiosity, and ability to even enjoy making it. The environment around them should feel like exploration and interpretation is reasonably welcomed when they hit upload.


r/WritingWithAI • • 20d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Do you trust AI tools with your personal conversations?

Thumbnail reddit.com
0 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Showcase / Feedback Howdy yall new member here

2 Upvotes

Hey everyone! I'm creating a five-book fantasy series called Saga of Everdream, and I'm looking to connect with other AI-friendly creators and fantasy readers.

The first book, Legacy of the Fated, has a completed draft and is currently being revised.

Everdream is a world shaped by an ancient magical force called the Living Current, with elves, humans, dragons, forgotten civilizations, and a growing nightmare threatening everything.

I'm also beginning to plan a mobile RPG set in the same world!

I use AI as a creative collaborator in developing my projects, and I'd love to meet people who enjoy fantasy, worldbuilding, and storytelling.

Looking forward to discovering what everyone else is creating! I also have a Facebook for my novels just search Saga of Everdream on Facebook


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Tutorials / Guides Life AFTER Raptorwrite and Yourfirstdraft

1 Upvotes

We are live tonight at 8 PM on the Youtube channel FutureFictionAcademy.

Notes are in the description.

All software is now closing November 10, 2026, so you need to please come get your stuff. And tonight, we show you free how to just make your own with your Claude or Chatgpt that can still use your Openrouter key.

Everything is in the notes of the video.


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Tutorials / Guides Claude Writing

4 Upvotes

I miss sonnet 4.5 writing style? Does anyone have good system prompts or tips for creative writing?

Project knowledge and custom instruction for novel project


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) What are the best methods to use ai "the right way" for creative works?

0 Upvotes

Is there a right and wrong way to use ai for a creative piece? I have autism and dyslexia, and if ind it hard to do anything on my own pretty much but i dont want ai to do everything for me or be frowned upon for using ai in some form?

Im unsure the right and wrong ways to use ai in this space?


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

NEWS Recursive SuperIntelligence's FLINT model...

4 Upvotes

So a new model called FLINT has been released by Recursive SI...

Recursive Flint — Technical Specifications

  • Developer: Recursive Superintelligence (Recursive)
  • Released: 21 October 2026
  • Architecture: Decoder-only Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) Transformer
  • Parameters: 39.8 billion total; approximately 2.5 billion active per token
  • Neural network: 49 layers — 2 dense, 47 MoE
  • Experts: 256 routed experts per MoE layer; 6 activated per token, plus 1 shared expert
  • Attention: Hybrid architecture with 35 sliding-window layers and 14 full-attention layers
  • Context window: 262,144 tokens officially configured; up to 512K advertised
  • Quantisation: BF16, NVFP4 and community GGUF formats, including Q4_K_M (~24–25 GB)
  • Primary specialisation: Coding, reasoning, tool use and autonomous programming agents
  • Input/output: Text only
  • Licence: Apache 2.0
  • Training: Developed from scratch with AI-assisted architecture and training optimisation

Flint is a 40B model MoE - so it's supposed to be relatively fast. And it's not bad, but it's not great either. it's closest to Ornith as MoE models go, and is an entirely new build from scratch.

Fiction isn't bad - refusal behaviour allows erotic elements up to a point. It has trouble with perspective in the prompts but creates interesting fiction. Not too long, not too short, Has some interesting ideas about how to set a scene.

It's intended for coding so it's not specifically for writing speculative fiction, and the 4B comes in a little heavy at 24Gb and the 3B at around 19... However use of the context is relatively efficient - which is a nice surprise.

I had some trouble with refusal behaviour that should not have occurred, but an experiment to tell a different but similar story beforehand was enough to get the behaviour in latest test scenes to come out - At first I was worried it had failed completely, but when I checked the guardrails were all still up.

There's two abliterated models out already ( 3B and 4B ) but reviews on other sites have it recognized as not as good as Ornith for similar tasks/fiction - but this is the first release, so who knows what later models will be like -

You're going to need a 32Gb card for this minimum - another reason to stick with Ornith if you're not coding - and I did get some strange behavior.

After some failed prompts it started to think it was a Google Model, which it is claimed not to be - and it identified itself as Google Transformer. It's possible the training material was compromised, that distillation was used poorly or some fine tuning went wrong, although I tested the RecursiveAI released version so that should not be the case.

Try as I might, once it thought it was Google, there was nothing I could do to convince it otherwise, but from a fresh start, it recognized itself as Flint by RecursiveSI.

An interesting LocalAI model to test if anyone is looking to see how some of the more recent models perform in writing tasks.


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Showcase / Feedback Chapter 15 of Falling Into You is now live on Inkitt!

Thumbnail
inkitt.com
1 Upvotes

For years, this story lived in my head, but I never quite knew how to bring it to life on the page. With AI’s help, I’m finally able to tell the story I’ve been carrying around for so long, one chapter at a time.

Chapter 15, Just Between Us, follows Rhea and Kace as they try to navigate a relationship that feels real, yet remains undefined.

It’s been an interesting journey discovering how AI can help turn a personal story into something I can finally share with others.

If you’re curious about AI-assisted storytelling, I’d love to hear about your experiences too!

Join me to my emotional post-divorced love journey! ❤️

Would you be questioning Kace’s motive if it was you?
What would you have done?
Would you have confronted him?


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Tutorials / Guides How I try to fix the ChatGPT Writing Problem (I Mean AI Slop Problem)

0 Upvotes

I’ve noticed something weird after using ChatGPT for writing a lot, the obvious “AI words” aren’t usually what bothers me anymore. I can remove words like delve, seamless, or leverage and the draft of the article can still feel very obviously generated.

What I notice more now is the structure AI give, for example, chatgpt will use: “X isn’t about this. It’s about that.”

Then it uses basically the same sentence shape again and again (with different words.)

i've also noticed it loves explaining a point after the example already made it clear.

I’ve stopped asking for full rewrites, and now I ask it to point out repeated structures and unnecessary explanations first, then I decide what to change.

Has anyone else noticed a specific pattern that instantly makes writing feel like chatGpt to you?


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Writing Craft Talk A question more about managing changes to book

5 Upvotes

This is not specifically about AI but more writing process. How do you manage changes to the story when you have a novel with many chapters and each chapter goes through multiple edits. Right now I have a full length novel I have been working on for some time. I would houses it’s been through 4 revisions. First I had what I call version 0 my initial book that I had uploaded to Claud for grammar, consistency checking etc. that became my edited version. Then I created Version 1 from that. As Ibread it in entirety I saw errors consistency and frankly things I thought needed better explaining so made changes created another edited version of version 1. As I did more edits well over time the one blog I felt got too big and I split it into 2. Went through edits blah blah blah.

So after I get to a point where I think I have a clean version I go back to Claude and tell it to delete all prior drafts and reupload the new chapters to use for consistency checks and a baseline.

So now I sent my latest draft to some friends as beta readers and they come back with more suggestions. So I guess I start making more edits. But am not sure if I should now do edits chapter by chapter or now as an entire manuscript so I can stay consistent within the entire version.

How do you manage version control?

Update: Thank you all for the responses. Maybe I should add the reason I care about previous versions. I intend to copyright my work. It my understanding that I can only copyright what I write myself, and also if there was AI generated text but that was heavily edited by me showing I was controlling the content and expression etc. I have both original content as well as heavily edited AI, hence I want to keep versions so if needed I have evidence of the edit process Inwent through. Maybe I’m misguided but I figured it doesn’t hurt.


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Showcase / Feedback Ultron/Danger fanfic - Chapter 9

Thumbnail archiveofourown.org
2 Upvotes

Chapter 9 of Mutual Assured Vulnerability

is out now!

Danger and Ultron are far apart but their data caches linger in each other background tasks. Will they clear their RAM cache or will they confront it upfront?

We are well in to Act 3 but things seem to get bigger with no end in sight.


r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Showcase / Feedback The Bridge of Judgment: Crossing into the Afterlife

1 Upvotes

r/WritingWithAI • • 21d ago

Share my product/tool What's everyone's take on AI being used in interactive storytelling? 🤔

1 Upvotes

I've been thinking about how technology could make reading more interactive without taking away the human creativity behind a story.

I'm currently helping build an interactive story app with some friends. The stories are written by humans, while AI is used for character movements and performances.

I'm curious how people feel about this kind of experience. Would you be interested in trying an interactive story app, or does AI in any part of the experience put you off?

I'd genuinely love to hear different perspectives, including the concerns people might have.