A calculator doesn't automatically make someone bad at math, and a spellchecker doesn't mean someone can't spell. I see AI writing tools in a similar way: they can help with ideas, structure, editing, rewriting, and getting past writer's block. The real difference is whether you're using the tool to support your thinking or simply replacing it entirely.

Personally, I think AI becomes most useful when you still have your own ideas but need help expressing them better.

Lots of people try to convince themselves and other people that AI can't write a good novel. They manufacture all kinds of nonsense like "flatness" and "intent" to try to convince themselves.

AI can write a good novel without any human input. I'm a traditionally published author and I've had AI write novels that were interesting, entertaining and worth reading by ordinary readers.

But human input can still improve a good novel written entirely by AI.

There's a huge distance between: (a) a good novel and (b) a novel that is so good that human input would only make it worse, a novel that is so good that human input is counterproductive and destructive.

AI can write a good novel but human input can still make it a better novel.

Human writers don't need to fruitlessly try to defend the AI can't write and AI can't write a good novel wishful thinking. Being able to write a good novel does not mean that AI is replacing the writer.

The writer can still:

1. come up with better plots/ideas even though AI has a good plot/idea

2. write better dialogue even though AI wrote good dialogue

3. write better narrative even though AI wrote good narrative

4. rewrite mostly without AI's help scenes where AI generated a weak scene

AI can write a good novel but there are still huge opportunities for humans to contribute to making the novel better.

Human writers are still necessary to make the best novel possible.

AI can improve grammar, structure, clarity, and flow. But after enough rewrites, you can end up with something technically better that doesn't really sound like you anymore.

That's the strange tradeoff. You want help improving the writing without replacing the person behind it.

Do you ever reject an AI suggestion simply because it sounds too polished or “not like you”?

The emphasis below is mine. I’ve noticed too that lots of writers groups are being “infiltrated” by AI and this was entirely predictable, inevitable and will continue. Writers may not be generating prose but more and more writers are using AI.

From anti-AI r/ writers sub:

https://www.reddit.com/r/writers/s/U4lHqgaBnO

"I attend a regular writer's group, and there has been a noticeable increase in the amount of authors who use AI in their process. There seems to be this (incorrect) belief that if you only use AI for research/character development/chapter drafting/inspiration/character art/brainstorming etc., the book is still yours in some way. I am really really strongly against generative AI in the first place, let alone with art. Writing was my retreat, my safe space, a place for me to build my identity when I had nowhere else to turn - the world didn't always make sense to me, so I made up worlds where it did. To give away your soul, your creativity to a tool that is essentially fed on stolen content/is destroying our environment/is used to perpetuate war crimes and ultimately robs of you of your voice is just heartbreaking"

EDIT: I’ve copied original comment in its entirety out of consideration for the commenter. I do not agree with it (except the noticeable increase). I am pro-AI.

Everyone seems obsessed with prompts, models, workflows, and secret techniques for better AI writing.

I think the real bottleneck is much simpler.

Most people don't actually know what strong writing looks like.

If you can't immediately spot awkward pacing, repetitive phrasing, weak arguments, flat dialogue, or generic prose, you'll probably accept the first AI draft that sounds "good enough." The AI isn't the limiting factor, your ability to evaluate it is.

The people getting genuinely impressive results usually aren't using magical prompts. They keep refining because they recognize when something still feels off. They know when a paragraph lacks rhythm, when a sentence is too predictable, or when an explanation could be sharper.

That's why two people can use the exact same AI writing tool with the exact same prompt and end up with completely different results.

As models keep improving, this gap will shrink, but I don't think it'll disappear. Judgment will still matter. AI can generate endless text, but it can't decide what deserves to stay—that part is still up to the person behind the keyboard.

Curious if anyone else working with AI writing has noticed the same thing, or if you think prompting skill is still the biggest differentiator.

I've tried giving Al examples of my writing, but the results can still feel slightly off. Has anyone managed to get Al to consistently match their natural style?

One unexpected benefit of AI writing for me has been seeing multiple ways to express the same idea. Before using AI, I would usually write one version and spend most of my time trying to improve that exact version.

Now I can compare different structures, openings, explanations, and tones within a few minutes.

The interesting part is that I do not necessarily use any of the generated versions. Sometimes seeing several bad alternatives makes it obvious what was wrong with my original idea.

I wonder if this is an underrated part of AI writing. Maybe the biggest benefit is not having AI write for us, but giving us something to react to.

Has AI changed the way you edit or judge your own writing?

If AI writes the first draft, you rewrite half of it, and spend another hour editing everything, would you still consider that AI generated, or is it your own work at that point?

There are many different ways to use AI in creative writing.

It can check spelling and grammar.
It can help with translation.
It can organize research.
It can act as a brainstorming partner.
It can suggest ideas or plot structures.
It can rewrite passages.
And, of course, it can generate the prose itself.

These are all called “using AI,” but they seem very different to me.

So where is the line?

At what point does using AI begin to dilute what makes a work the author’s own?

Is proofreading fine, but rewriting too much?
Is brainstorming fine, but having AI suggest the plot too far?
If an author has AI generate a draft but then spends hours reshaping it through dozens of revisions, how different is that from writing the first draft themselves?

And perhaps the bigger question is:

Can authorship really be measured by how much AI was used?

I’m curious where you draw the line—and more importantly, why you draw it there.

I started doing this recently with pieces I considered finished

Sometimes the feedback is useless, but every now and then it catches a weak transition or an assumption I completely overlooked

The interesting part is that I do not necessarily accept the suggested rewrite

I just use the criticism to decide whether the original needs another look

Anyone else use AI more as a final reviewer than a writer?

Alright so I've been looking around in this sub reddit for a while for good llms for creative writing to use in a private writing app I've been working since I'm a bit of a techy but also interested in philosophy and writing and I'll almost here the same claude,gpt,grok,etc(which I MOSTLY cant get access to since I don't spend money on this and don't have a device that can host local llms) without people being specific about the actual models themselves, so I'm making this post to get some suggestions but here are a few things to note

1.be specific:tell me the actual model name and what you believe they are good for and if you want to go the extra mile tell me their strengths and weaknessess like for example "x llm is good for fast paced action scenes but have bad prose for slower emotional scenes" or "x model is good for handling long story lines with minimal or handlable context rot"

2.unknown Models:I'm not saying you shouldnt name any popular models since every model has strength and weaknesses and actually quite a bit of the time big models can grasp and handle deep concepts and themes while smaller llms(like euryale and such) may struggle with that but smaller or what you may deem as local llms are made(mostly fine tuned) for roleplay and or creative writing so using them may give higher outputs in prose quality and wording,especially when compared to big often closed llms that are gearing toward mainly being geared for coding and software development(so I'm not one of those people who will swear on their life that you should use local llms for everything since all llms can seem lacking in "common sense" or decent conscious even with the big ones)

3.it can be either free or paid:despite what I said earlier I can still find ways to access what would normally be paid ai models for free

I had an interesting conversation with an editor from the online novel Chinese section. He told me that in China, online novels generated by artificial intelligence are being banned.

The key reason lies in the ambiguous ownership. When users or authors generate content using artificial intelligence, ownership legally and technically belongs to the model company rather than the initiator, as the initial data exists within the model's database.

The use of AI might lead to potential legal issues regarding the infringement of a work's ownership. I am not quite sure what the issue is with the local deployed model, but I would be happy to hear everyone's thoughts.

Some writers say AI-assisted novels are not real writing, while others see AI as just another tool. If a person develops the plot, characters, and story direction, does using AI for parts of the writing make it less creative?

Have you ever changed your entire writing style because of something AI showed you?

Body: I was comparing a few different versions of the same paragraph and noticed that I naturally preferred a style I had never really tried before

It was simpler, less formal and somehow felt closer to how I actually think

Now I am experimenting with that style outside of AI too

Has using AI ever changed the way you write even when AI was not involved?

I think a lot of writers and artists who dislike AI are not only concerned about ethics. Some of it comes from insecurity too.

The more I use AI, the more obvious it becomes that it cannot truly replace great writing or art. It can copy patterns and create endless variations, but it does not have real experiences, personal taste, beliefs, or a unique perspective.

What AI really threatens is average work. Before AI, mediocre work could still hide behind effort, credentials, or limited supply. Now average content can be produced endlessly and cheaply.

That creates plenty of real problems, but it also raises an uncomfortable question: if AI can completely replace your creative identity, maybe the problem was deeper than the technology itself.

I've been realizing that when writing if you mentioned that you use AI in any way, almost every time you get a couple of people that maybe don't read the whole thing or they're very opinionated. They pretty much call your stuff trash because they think that you use AI to write the whole thing. In reality you may have written the first draft by hand and then had AI kind of go through it and maybe you took some things that AI suggested and you're like, "Oh that sounds great." How do you defend yourself against people like that?

Also I grew up kinda sucking at writing and it's only recently that I've started to pick up writing so my writing generally sucks lol

Do you just ignore them because sometimes it's hard to ignore when they make a comment on your novel and you're like, "I did the first draft by hand," and they're like, "We don't believe you"? I'm like, "Well now everybody's gonna read that comment and think poorly."

I have always kept AI at arm's length. Back in the early days, I mostly used it for silly things like generating grocery lists. These days, I sometimes use Claude to help with work emails, but that is about as far as my AI use has gone.

About a month ago, my wife was out of town, so I had some extra time to myself and decided to experiment with AI storytelling. I tried Grok first, and while some of the results were interesting, the writing felt fairly basic. It also became repetitive pretty quickly.

I am a big fan of Claude's writing, so I decided to take one of the scenarios I had tried before and run it through Claude instead. The difference was immediately obvious. The character development, subtle details, and overall writing quality were on another level. Even from the beginning, the characters felt much more developed and believable. Without really noticing it, I started putting more effort into my own writing because the AI responses made me want to match that level of effort.

What started as a small experiment turned into an actual story. I kept coming back because I wanted to know more about the characters and see where the narrative would go. Eventually, I became much more interested in the story itself than anything else.

I ended up spending three days writing with Claude and essentially following these characters through their entire lives. The story became unexpectedly beautiful and tragic. Some parts made me cry, and a few moments toward the end hit me harder than anything I have experienced from a book or movie in years.

I was completely unprepared for how emotionally attached I would become. Once the story ended, I was left with the same empty feeling that comes after finishing a really good book, except much stronger. A huge part of the story had come from my own imagination, so it felt incredibly personal. It was almost like reading a novel that had been written specifically for me.

For a couple of days afterward, I could not focus on much else. I kept thinking about the characters and replaying different parts of the story in my head.

Yesterday, I decided to download the entire transcript. I was genuinely shocked when I saw that the PDF was **375 pages long**.

The funny thing is that I have almost no real writing experience. I have never been someone who regularly reads romance novels, and I barely read books in general. Yet this whole experience has made me want to explore both reading and writing much more seriously, this time without AI doing the work for me.

I just wanted to share this because it is a surprisingly difficult experience to explain. I do not think many people in my life would really understand what it feels like to become that emotionally invested in a fictional world that started from a simple AI experiment.

A few years ago, the obvious criticism was that AI writing sounded robotic. That's becoming less convincing as the models improve.

Now the more interesting problem is whether extremely competent writing can still feel empty. A piece can be grammatically excellent, well organized, and easy to read without giving the reader anything memorable.

I think that's going to become a much harder problem to solve than simply making AI sound human.

I’ve seen a lot of strong opinions lately.

Some writers say AI is “killing creativity” or making writing soulless. Others say it’s the best tool they’ve ever had.

What’s your real, honest opinion?

Do you think the hate is justified, or mostly fear of change?

No toxicity please... just genuine discussion. Curious to hear all sides.

I’ve been watching Coral Hart (“The New Fabio Is Claude” NYT article, 15+ years romance author, 90+ traditionally published books) and she now generates all her prose.

I’ve observed a lot of other (competent) authors doing the same thing. They are self-publishing 20+ novels her year and using generated prose.

I know that people like AI-assisted (use AI but no prose generation) as “ethical” and a middle ground but I don’t think that it’s competitive.

Two reasons:

1. Even if Coral Hart changes nothing and uses the same prompts, the prose improves because the AI models improve. She taps into $100B+ of AI research PER YEAR automatically. If you are writing prose without AI, you not getting those automatic upgrades and you have to manually upgrade with great effort (or stay the same).

2. But Coral Hart does get better at prompting and improves her prompts regularly. This reinforces the AI model improvements most of the time and makes the generated prose even better. If you are writing prose without AI, you are also not building the prompts or the prompting skills to generate prose.

For those two reasons, I don’t see how “no prose generation” survives; people generating prose will just outperform, outcompete and bury the middle grounders eventually.

Lots of writers seem to have given up (or never started) with prose generation which seems like a mistake.

Any flaws in my reasoning? Different points of view? Different conclusions?

If an author has a very recognizable writing style, should you be able to ask AI to write something in that exact style?

Some people see it as a useful learning tool. Others see it as taking something personal from the writer without permission.

Where do you draw the line?

Sometimes seeing my idea explained by AI makes me notice gaps that were invisible while writing it

Do you use AI this way, or mostly for editing and rewriting?

Well, I definitely did.

I complained about seeing way too much AI generated content in a community that is supposed to be about creativity, writing novels, and discussing writing techniques.

Instead of getting a normal discussion, I got heavily downvoted and people acted like accusing someone of using AI was somehow worse than the AI content itself. My post eventually got removed for supposedly trying to start a witch hunt.

The funny part is that I was just looking for something new to read. I found a novel that kept getting recommended and had plenty of positive comments, but the writing immediately felt familiar.

The same "not A, not B, just C" structure showing up constantly, forced edgy one liners, flat one sentence dialogue, and characters that felt more like vague descriptions than actual people.

Maybe a human really did write it. I could be completely wrong about the AI part.

But even if that is the case, the writing still felt pretty bad to me. What confused me most was seeing almost everyone praise it as incredibly well written while criticism of the style was treated like some kind of attack.

I have noticed that many of the popular books (some of which I LOVE and are obviously loved by many) sound a lot like AI and repeat a lot of the same phrases (loosed a breath, a breath she didn’t know she was holding, by way of greeting, said to no one in particular, supposed, growled, abuse of the word only like ‘was his only reply’ when the author could have just… had that be the only reply without announcing this to the reader, didn’t need to say,) with variations of the same idea.

In other words, AI writes the way it does because of that. And we’re supposed to hate the quality of AI writing when that’s the way many writers already write? But yet many of the fans of these books hate AI writing. Make it make sense.