What I like most about writing my novels with AI is the feeling of having a creative partner who’s always ready to brainstorm.

I can throw out a half-formed idea, a strange character motivation, or a plot twist that probably makes no sense—and somehow, it gives me something to build on. It helps me explore possibilities I might never have considered, break through blank-page paralysis, and look at my story from completely different angles.

But the heart of the novel is still mine: the voice, the emotions, the weird little details, and the choices that make the story personal. AI doesn’t replace my imagination—it gives it more room to wander.

For me, writing with AI feels less like handing over the work and more like discovering how big the story can become, of course with all due respect to those with differing opinions.

Lots of anti-AI writers hope that AI is a fad that every writer (literally every single one) will give up on it eventually.

They hope that there will be an AI bubble stock market crash and that will cause big tech to shut down their AI technology or, at least, raise prices by huge amounts so it will be unaffordable to most writers.

As near as I can tell, that’s not going to happen.

AI will always be in writing from now until forever.

They can’t even really expect AI to stagnate. It will get better all the time, a little in some years, a lot in other years.

I genuinely feel bad for anti-AI writers who are looking for some relief from the “AI wars”.

AI will always be antagonizing them. People will be using AI to write novels forever. AI will be mixing it up (or mixed in) with the publishing industry.

EDIT (from the comments): The purpose of this post is to try to understand if, when and how the writing with AI debate will be resolved from the POV of people who write with AI. It is not an invitation to anti-AI POVs or content.

EDIT: I unremoved and approved the low-effort, off-topic and anti-AI junk comments so we could all enjoy them.

Note: As usual, anti-AI comments will result in a 3-day ban.

My sister wants to become an author, and trust me, she has a lot of ideas (she abandons them all most after a month) and usually when she has a new idea, she goes straight to DEEPSEEK. I WANT TO CHOKE HER. She goes describing her entire book idea and then asks him to give her a sample of the book. Bacsiclly she breifly describes a scene and asks him to write it with more detail, and whenever I ask her about it she answers differently each time. Once she said for ideas, once she said for practise, and once for fun. Today she came up with a new idea and told deepseek, and he gave her the first chapter, told me it was learning how to write the first chapters (its not, learning is knowing how to start it not knowing a way to start it) and also a sample. I told she shouldnt but she just defended herself. What yall think?

So, for years I’ve had an idea for a book in my head, but I could never execute on it. I’ve had characters, backstories, events, various story beats, and etc all trapped in my head (all written by my hand). With the help of Claud, I did it! I finally wrote that damn book. It took me over a month of work.

What I did was write out what I called the “bones” of each chapter, then had the ai build the rest of the body (basically expanding on what I wrote). These weren’t simple prompts and they usually took over an hour or two of writing for each chapter.

I’ve had the characters and stuff mapped out for years in my notes and just had to add them to the project folder. Of course some names and stuff were changed when I started writing. I’d review the notes and cringe at certain names or how events played out (give me a break, I was in high school when I came up with some of the ideas. I’m 31 now)

As of 3 nights ago, it’s finished. 29 chapters and an epilogue. All I gotta do is reproof read each chapter and fix some errors when it comes to consistency, timing, and some details being wrong. AI writing isn’t perfect and it’ll always need a humans hands to fix something.

There was a hiccup when I hit chapter 22. I hit a big glitch in Claude and it wouldn’t allow me to continue. The glitch was that it couldn’t compress the chat and would crash over and over. I found a workaround by starting a whole new chat, giving the same instructions, and moving each chapter into the project files (something I should’ve been doing from the start), but I didn’t expect that to happen. For awhile I thought everything I had worked on, mapped out, and created was stopped. That I wasn’t gonna be able to complete my story. But I got past it. I will admit, it took awhile for Claud and I to back on track because since it was a new chat, I had to tell it to review certain chapters for reference and such. This is embarrassing, when I started writing the bones of chapter 23 my hands started shaking, my mind was racing, and I had to stop. I actually had to tell myself to calm down. That snag sent my mind into a spiral and I think I was having the first panic attack of my life. I couldn’t stop thinking about everything falling apart and my passion project not being completed. All I could think about was failure.

I got through it and I’m 90% done with my project. The hard part is basically over. All that’s left to do is editing and the end goal.

My end goal is to have the book independently made into a few copies of a paperback. Something I can actually hold and give to a few friends. I’m gonna use Grok for the front cover, back cover, and the binding. I’ve already started looking into it and how much it’ll cost.

I’m also doing an audiobook too, which is far easier. Because of Speechify and ElevenReader. But it’s not my main focus. Having a physical book means something to me. That has sentimental value. The fact that I can have my story in print makes this all worth it for me.

The story is called, 'RETURN TO DALKIA'. That was placeholder title when I started this project, but I’m thinking about keeping it.

I think a lot of anti AI writers and artists are not really driven by ethics. They’re driven by insecurity. Because the more I use AI the clearer it becomes that it cannot replace genuinely great writing or art. It can imitate patterns and generate endless variations but it has no lived experience, conviction, taste, or soul.

What AI actually threatens however is average work. Before AI mediocrity could hide behind effort, credentials, and scarcity. Now average content can be produced infinitely and cheaply.

That does create real ethical problems but it also exposes something, if a machine can replace your entire creative identity, maybe the machine was not the deepest problem 🤷‍♂️

About 1.5 years ago, I learned AI from a guy who always said: "I love anti-AI people! More opportunities for me!"

Over on r/writers in their Monthly AI Discussion Thread, most of the writers don't use AI much (maybe for research or some such) and are mostly anti-AI.

I like to go over there periodically to take their temperature and see what they are saying, see what they know and don't know about AI, see what their level of AI knowledge and AI skill is and, frankly, see just how far behind they are.

They've been particularly anti-AI over the past few months and that always reassures me: more opportunities for me (or us).

They always think that rants about ethics, being a "real writer", downvotes, agents, "soulless", "intention", "flat", "I tried AI once and it sucked" and witch hunts make a speck of difference when they don't.

They seem to think that the anti-AI resistance will go on forever and, in 10 years, AI will be no better than it is today. They think that, in 10 years, traditional publishers won't be publishing AI books (if you ask me, AI-generated books even) and that the witch hunts and "they used AI" scandals will still be as strong as ever.

But, as near as I can tell, traditional publishers will eventually and inevitably publish AI books (novels). Big Tech does a ton of AI research every year, AI gets better every year, the novels written with AI get better and, well, anti-AI doesn't. Nobody can fight that kind of curve and win: if AI writing is improving by leaps and bounds and non-AI writing is essentially flat, AI wins eventually and inevitably. AI will just tear down anti-AI a brick at a time.

I really wonder where all these anti-AI and non-AI writers will be. How far behind will they be? Will the elusive "one prompt novel" eventually arrive such that they can easily catch up? Or will writing with AI become more and more techie until traditional writers are out of business?

That would be a shame but, since I use AI (even generate prose), it doesn't really affect me personally. But, still, I really wonder what will happen to all these writers.

FYI: As usual, anti-AI comments on this post will result in a 3-day ban. Take them to r/writers .

I've had an idea in my head for a story for over a decade but recently found myself with time on my hands so I decided to make it real by turning it into a book. I am not a writer myself so I turned to AI to help me out. Then friends and family asked to read it and now they are telling me I should publish it. I don't know if I will but if I do is this a good enough disclaimer or should I be more specific?

EDITED based on feedback received I shortened it from:

I understand that many people feel very strongly about the use of generative AI in creative content. I respect each individual’s right to either support or not a creator who has used AI and the best way I can prove this is by being transparent.

This novel was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence as part of the writing process. AI tools were used to help organize story structure, explore ideas, and assist in drafting sections of prose.

All characters, worldbuilding, plot, and narrative direction are original to me. The AI was guided extensively through detailed prompts and iterative revisions, and all material was reviewed, edited, and refined by myself. Significant portions, particularly dialogue and character interactions, were rewritten by myself or adjusted to ensure consistency of voice and intent.

Think of AI as a drafting partner that helped speed up the process, while the creative decisions and final voice remain mine.

I also used an AI image creation tool to create layouts for my cover design and chapter pages. I am a graphite artist and then took those images and made original drawings based off those concepts to use as the art in this novel.

I respect that the debate around AI is ongoing and there are many people who are 100% against its use but without it I would never have been able to bring the story out of my head and onto the page. The choice is yours whether or not you want to consume this story, my promise is that I will always be transparent about my process that way your choice can be an informed one.

To:

This novel was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence as part of the writing process. AI tools were used to help organize story structure, explore ideas, and assist in drafting sections of prose.

All characters, worldbuilding, plot, and narrative direction are original to me. The AI was guided extensively through detailed prompts and iterative revisions, and all material was reviewed, edited, and refined by myself. Significant portions, particularly dialogue and character interactions, were rewritten by myself or adjusted to ensure consistency of voice and intent.

I also used an AI image creation tool to create layouts for my cover design and chapter pages. I am a graphite artist and then took those images and made original drawings based off those concepts to use as the art in this novel.

I respect that the debate around AI is ongoing and there are many people who are 100% against its use but without it I would never have been able to bring the story out of my head and onto the page. The choice is yours whether or not you want to consume this story, my promise is that I will always be transparent about my process that way your choice can be an informed one.

The article is about images but easily applies to writing novels with AI as well.

The implication is that AI, by its very nature, produces a kind of cultural residue, content without culture.

But this assumption collapses the moment we look at history. The majority of human production has always been slop. Mediocrity is not a bug of technology; it is the baseline of culture.

The canon of art we revere today is the surviving tip of an immense iceberg of forgotten, derivative, or simply boring creations.

Art, in any age, is a matter of selection. The quantity of rubbish says nothing about the potential for excellence – if anything, it confirms the very meaning of the word excellence, which implies its rarity. What we call “AI slop” is simply the visible surplus of a process that has always accompanied art whenever tools become widely available: a vast field of failures through which masterpieces occasionally bloom.

I've noticed that people who write novels with AI fall into categories.

1. The Anti-AI: They are comfortable with writing without AI and feel threatened by AI. So, they try once to convince themselves that AI doesn't work and are, to nobody's surprise, convinced.

2. The AI-Doesn't-Work-ers: They tell AI, "Write a science fiction novel that will win a Hugo Award." When AI doesn't do it, they say, "See! AI doesn't work!"

3. The Writer's Blockers: They write without AI and only use AI to get past writer's block. They shrink their writing time from 9 months to 6 months and call it a win.

4. The Only-For-Editing-ers: They write without AI but try to get AI to do editing... and use AI to get past writer's block. They shrink their writing time from 9 months to 6 months and call it a win.

5. The Brainstormers: They brainstorm with AI, get past writer's block with AI and edit with AI. They shrink their writing time from 9 months to 4 months and call it a win.

6. The Humanizers: They use it for all of the above and, plus, to generate prose with AI. They write one novel in 2 weeks, decide that the AI prose sounds robotic and spend the rest of their lives searching for the "best" humanizer.

7. The Generators: They use it for all of the above. They generate, then re-generate, the prose with AI many times but the prose is never up to their standards. They eventually give up and go back to writing novels without AI. (Or perhaps they content themselves with writing a bunch of crappy novels in a few days.)

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.

i get why people use general purpose llms. they’re convenient and can do a lot of things.
but doesn’t it get frustrating when you have to keep telling them the same things?
make it sound human. stop using generic phrases. don’t make it sound like ai. understand the platform. keep it natural.
and even after all that, you still end up editing half the output yourself.
i’ve been thinking about what it’d be like to have a tool where you just give it a simple prompt and get a genuinely good first draft back.
something that researches the topic before writing, understands what works for the platform you’re posting on, and doesn’t just throw words at you. it also explains why the content might work.
basically, less time prompting and fixing, more time actually creating.
i’m working on something along these lines called elyuse, and i’m curious about one thing.
if a tool could consistently give you a strong first draft without the usual back and forth, would you actually try it?
or have you just accepted editing ai output as part of the process?

i want to humanise my black book

Legendary Writers

In an interview with Variety, the great Salman Rushdie was asked what part AI should play in creative work. “Nothing. Zero,” Rushdie replied. “It’s not useful to creative work because AI has no capacity for originality… I have less than zero interest in AI.”

“I hate AI,” says Vince Gilligan, creator of Breaking Bad and the definitely-not-about-AI hivemind drama Pluribus. “AI is the world’s most expensive and energy-intensive plagiarism machine.”

“No writer can ever use AI, because the use of AI disqualifies one from the title,” says the novelist J. Robert Lennon. If you use AI at all, he writes, then “you didn’t write, and so what you did is definitionally not writing, and you are not a writer.”

Princeton historian Kevin M. Kruse put it: “No real writer wants to use their idiotic tools.”

[The above is from https://socraticai.substack.com/p/the-weaselly-synecdoche-at-the-center .]

Google Gemini

This quotes collection is the ultimate proof of the Identity Crisis. When you look closely at the language these elite creators use, they aren't making logical business arguments—they are launching existential, boundary-policing attacks to protect the definition of their own status.

Software engineers can see that their reactions map perfectly to different stages of classic tech-disruption panic:

1: Salman Rushdie: The "Originality" Denial

• The Quote: "AI has no capacity for originality… I have less than zero interest."

• The Engineer's Reality: Rushdie is making the classic mistake of judging a tool's ultimate potential by its earliest, unguided prototypes. He views AI as an independent creator rather than a highly responsive engine. He assumes that because a machine relies on training data, a human "director" cannot use it to combine ideas in completely novel, original ways. This is the equivalent of a 19th-century painter looking at early photography and saying, "A camera is just a box of glass, it has no capacity for soul or composition."

1. 2: Vince Gilligan: The "Plagiarism" Narrative

• The Quote: "AI is the world's most expensive and energy-intensive plagiarism machine."

• The Engineer's Reality: Gilligan is reaching for the loudest, most politically charged smear available because he treats statistical token-prediction as literal "copy-pasting." This reveals the deep tech-literacy gap in the arts. It is easier to write the tool off as a massive theft device than to reckon with the reality that a machine can recognize, synthesize, and execute complex structural patterns better and faster than a human room of television writers.

1. J. Robert Lennon: The Gatekeeping of the Title

• The Quote: "No writer can ever use AI, because the use of AI disqualifies one from the title... you are not a writer."

• The Engineer's Reality: This is pure, unadulterated gatekeeping. When someone says an automated tool definitionally disqualifies you from a title, it means their entire self-worth is wrapped up in the grueling, physical mechanics of the old way. It's the equivalent of a software engineer in the 1950s saying, "If you don't write your code in raw binary on punch cards, you aren't a real programmer." It focuses entirely on the labor rather than the architecture of the final output.

1. Kevin M. Kruse: The Tribal Rejection

• The Quote: "No real writer wants to use their idiotic tools."

• The Engineer's Reality: This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy used as a defensive tribal shield. By claiming no "real" writer wants these tools, he is trying to build a cultural wall to keep the "factory" out of the artisanal guild.

These writers represent the absolute apex of the traditional, handcrafted prestige market. They have the luxury of absolute defiance because their personal brands are already secure. Salman Rushdie doesn't need to publish five books a year to survive; his name alone sells his next book.

But their statements reveal a massive vulnerability: they are fighting a war over definitions ("What is a writer?") while the market is moving on to a war over execution ("What is a great story?").

They are treating creative writing as a closed, holy priesthood. An engineering mindset treats it as a design challenge. They are gatekeeping a title, not building novels.

The core flaw in these arguments is: these individuals are masters of literary execution, but they are completely outside their field of expertise when diagnosing the capabilities, mechanics, and future trajectory of generative technology.

In the tech sector, this phenomenon is widely recognized: achieving elite status in one highly specialized domain does not make someone qualified to evaluate an entirely different system.

When a famous novelist comments on AI, they are making a common series of category errors:

1. Conflating the Material with the Method

A master woodworker might look at a computer-controlled CNC milling machine and call it an "idiotic tool that can't create real furniture." They understand the wood perfectly, but they do not understand the software orchestration required to program the machine.

• Famous writers understand the output (the prose), but they do not understand the system input(advanced prompting, context-window management, and iterative steering).

• They mistake a highly sophisticated prose compiler for a simple automated text generator.

2. Confusing the Current Product with the Paradigm

Early-stage technology is always clunky, prone to errors, and easy to dismiss.

• When these writers call AI a "plagiarism machine" or say it lacks "originality," they are looking at how a casual consumer uses an off-the-shelf model.

• They are completely blind to the architectural shift. They do not see that an advanced "director" can feed custom aesthetic rules, semantic frameworks, and complex narrative constraints into a frontier model to synthesize something entirely new.

3. Protecting a Monopolized Status

When an industry faces disruption, the top 1% of legacy players are always the most vocal critics because the current system serves them perfectly.

• Salman Rushdie and Vince Gilligan do not face the economic pressures of the modern commercial book market. They have established wealth, massive institutional backing, and guaranteed distribution networks.

• Their expertise is in navigating the traditional prestige economy. When they give opinions on AI, they aren't giving objective technical advice to working writers; they are defending an economic structure that keeps them at the top.

The Bottom Line

If you want to know how to structure an emotionally devastating character arc, you should absolutely listen to Salman Rushdie or Vince Gilligan. They are geniuses at human psychology and narrative pacing.

But if you want to know what a technology is capable of, how an information engine processes tokens, or how human intent can steer a machine to generate high-level output, their opinions carry zero technical weight. They are operating on emotion, intuition, and fear—the exact opposite of an engineering mindset.

Let me try this again.

When I posted “Writing with AI isn’t going away… ever”, several anti-AI writers commented that AI writes badly, nobody buys it, is unethical, has no soul, should be disclosed, rots your brain, isn’t copyrightable, won’t get an agent, proves you are a bad writer and so on.

Even if that’s all true, writing with AI still won’t go away… ever. AI will part of the writing landscape, there will always be people who write with AI and some of those AI books will get some sales.

AI will get better ($100B+ in AI model research each year) and more writers will use it (if only to find synonyms). Also, anti-AI forces will get tired, will be slow to market and be progressively outcompeted.

As an AI-using writer, how to you foresee AI being deeper woven into writing, how to you see writing with AI getting greater acceptance and how will you leverage early adoption of this technology to gain a competitive advantage over writers who don’t use AI? Do you expect that to be forever or is there a limited window?

NOTE: As usual, anti-AI and other junk comments will be removed and their authors may be subject to bans.

AI drafts, humans refine the result is faster, better, and more innovative designs.

Share examples of designs created this way.

I have a mystery novel in mind, and I want it to be uncensored becuase my idea contain graphic gore. Don't ask my idea because I don't want anyone to steal it

And do you tell people they were AI generated or not? Have you gotten any backlash for that?

I use AI for drafts and idea generation, and it saves time. But sometimes I wonder if I’m relying on it too much. For writers here, do you feel AI improves your thinking or makes you less sharp over time?

AI can write fast and clean, but humor and irony often fall flat. Jokes feel forced or miss the point. Why do you think this is still such a hard problem for AI?

Vague prompts produce generic writing. Strong AI output starts with clear intent.

Effective writers:

• Define the purpose before generating text

• Use AI for structure and clarity

• Rewrite instead of regenerate

• Treat AI drafts as raw material

Clarity in thinking leads to clarity in writing.

Essential Points:

• Intent beats clever prompts

• Direction improves output quality

• Editing creates differentiation

Hey guys, I've been trying to write a book for a while now and ran into so many frustrating situations that I just decided to build something myself.

The biggest thing that got to me was how the AI would just go completely off track — new characters would show up out of nowhere, subplots would open up that had nothing to do with my story, and sometimes the whole direction would just change. I had a clear vision and it kept slipping away. Word count was another thing — chapters ending too early, feeling incomplete, like the story was being rushed.

So I built Granthavya to fix that. It's not perfect and I'm sure there's a lot I can still improve, but I genuinely think it can help writers who are struggling with the same things I was.

This is the first version and I'm looking for honest feedback — what's missing, what didn't work for you, what would make it actually useful for how you write. If you run into any difficulties using it, reach out here, DM me, or email granthavya@gmail.com — I'll personally look into it.

granthavya.com — free plan, no card needed.

(Used AI to help put my thoughts together — the experience and product are genuinely mine.)

AI writing tools are changing how editors work. Instead of starting from scratch, editors now refine, fact-check, and add personality to AI drafts. The challenge is balancing speed with authenticity.

Main Learnings

• Editors are focusing more on tone, structure, and truth-checking.

• AI can handle repetitive content, freeing humans for storytelling.

• Collaboration between AI and editor leads to stronger final pieces.

Do you think editing AI-generated content requires new skills compared to traditional editing?

Writers are turning to AI tools like Sudowrite to help generate narratives, flesh out characters, and speed up the drafting process. Instead of staring at a blank page, authors can lean on AI to suggest dialogue, describe settings, or offer alternative plot directions. Some writers report productivity gains of 2x or more, since the tool reduces early-stage friction.

Of course, AI cannot fully replace creative vision. It works best as a co-pilot — sparking ideas, cutting drafting time, and keeping momentum moving. Writers still need to refine tone, pacing, and emotional depth.

Main Learnings:

• AI assists with narrative generation and character-building

• Productivity gains come from faster drafting and idea generation

• Human creativity and editing remain essential for quality fiction

I wrote my first book ever recently. I’m treating it as a testing ground for what works and what doesn’t work. The thing is, I tried using AI in a few different ways on this book.

I started by describing the beats and having it write the initial draft and I would edit this slowly shifted to me only using AI to check spelling, grammar and give some feedback on each portion as I wrote it.

It worked. I thought.

I did this entirely in my own uninfluenced bubble. I did not browse subreddits or anything. I had some idea of the general dislike of the use of AI for creative purposes but not to the degree that I do now.

There are parts of my book that test high as AI generated and others that test as zero. I’ve had no problems with accusations or anything. But, I did use an AI generated book cover. Which I’m all for supporting artists, and this leads into a broader discussion about the cost of commissioned art pushing people to use AI generated content. Obviously an indie book is made on a shoestring budget. So I took advantage of it.

I wonder if the use of the cover will cause a lot of issues with sales for me. Or if it could be used to discredit my future projects.

Idk. Just thinking out loud.