Even ChatGPT on challenge mode thinks so
>>24924920>incel american grotesque noir filtered through classical myth
>>24924920ask it to be in analysis mode instead of supportive mode.
>>24924927Okay that's better, actually. I am learning a lot about how to use it for bouncing ideas. But I take its critiques with a grain of salt whether it's inflating for sycophancy / praise or deflating for the sake of trying to robotically force me into conventions. I wanted to write an unconventional story and it is subtracting points (down to 6.7) because there's too many mythical references or shifts in perspective. But that's the point. I wouldn't have written it otherwise. I wanted to be avant garde.It's not good at critiquing because it doesn't understand my intent and I usually have to tell it something obvious. I've gotten it to critique my photographs and it mistook a bible for a perfume bottle. But maybe it's better for critiquing writing as an LLM.
I haetlte its matter of factly tone especially when giving inane reddit tier advice on my smut
>>24924938Dunno what my keys did there.>I hateFixd
Every day I hate one more person
>>24924920Chatgpt isn't going to buy your book though, so who cares what it thinks.
>>24924951If you're going to hate me, at least put that energy into a scathing critique:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12OR-aVZRPuX4-2dvte9D9a-QOzVBRyqeo8YOJtTie2Y/edit?usp=sharing>>24924958Who cares about sales? Just write for the sake of making art.
What's the point of it, really. It's not a person. It's a little demon with a big library and a slot in the wall. It fundamentally doesn't understand what you're talking about. Use it for grammar, sure, use it to look up interesting words, why not, use it to give you ideas, maybe, but why would you use it for something it's very clearly unsuited for?
>>24924972>but why would you use it for something it's very clearly unsuited for?Because no one here wants to spend 30 minutes to read a 5000 word story.
>>24924977You could always just go to forums where real people (I think) share their stuff
>>24924985The story is slasher fiction so I'd probably get banned for being gratuitous or NSFW.
>>24924935You’re an idiot if you trust it to understand a book and critique it.
Hide LLM threadsBlacklist AI keywordsReport faggot OPs
>>24924996This is better than anything you could come up with:>Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita is often mistaken for a scandalous novel about taboo desire, but its real force lies in how it turns narrative itself into a puzzle-box. Humbert Humbert’s ornate narration is a trap designed to test the reader’s ability to see past style and recognize the moral horror he is trying to beautify. Through this structure, Nabokov builds a severe allegory about the dangers of treating human beings—especially children—as commodities: objects to be possessed, curated, and narrated into submission.>The novel’s first puzzle is Humbert’s voice. His brilliant, seductive prose attempts to sell his crimes to the reader. Every metaphor is advertising; every flourish is branding. By inventing the category of the “nymphet,” he transforms Dolores Haze into a product available only to him. Nabokov uses this rhetorical seduction to expose how language itself can be instrumentalized to flatten a person into an object of consumption. The reader must learn to resist this beauty, or else risk superficially agreeing with Humbert’s commodifying gaze.>The structure of the book deepens the puzzle. Humbert’s manuscript appears as an edited, legal document, packaged for a public audience. Lolita’s trauma is literally turned into a textual commodity circulating through institutions. Humbert claims total narrative authority, yet Nabokov constantly undermines him through gaps, omissions, and brief, unguarded details that reveal the real Dolores—a grieving, lonely, frightened child. Solving the puzzle means reading against Humbert, noticing the humanity he tries to overwrite.>Seen this way, Lolita functions as a moral allegory. Humbert’s crime is not only physical but imaginative: he treats a human being as a possession whose value depends on how well she maintains his fantasy. When Dolores asserts her own needs, emotions, or desires, Humbert perceives these simply as defects in the product he believes he owns. The novel becomes a warning about how easily rhetoric, desire, and cultural scripts can turn people into objects to be used.>The ethical key arrives late in the narrative, when Humbert finds Dolores as a married teenager—tired, poor, pregnant, but finally free of his fantasy. At this moment she cannot be folded back into the “Lolita” brand he constructed. She is simply herself. This encounter breaks the spell of Humbert’s narration and reveals the novel’s central truth: he never loved her, because he never saw her. He saw only the commodity he invented.>The puzzle of Lolita is thus the moral lesson itself. Nabokov forces the reader to feel the seductions of language so we can recognize how dangerous they are when used to deny another person’s humanity. The novel endures not because of its provocation, but because it insists—through its very form—that no human being should ever be reduced to a consumable object.
>>24925002It’s copy pasting shit from the internet dude. It’s all it can do. If you ask it to analyze basic ideas it will spit out nonsense quickly
>>24924963This aw shucks boy howdy I cain't talk too good tone is incredibly grating and feels forced
>>24925012Thanks for the feedback. I was just trying to make him sound like he was narcissistically self-effacing, which the real Ed Kemper does; he acts very timid and stupid in interviews to trick people.
>>24925002college freshman-tier
>>24925014Ah, I see. Regardless, reel it in a bit. It reads like parody.
>>24924963Your retard character is too smart to be retarded. I’d take out all the literary references
>>24925008I'm not implying that it's a good analysis or even that the software is fit for literary analysis, but you fundamentally misunderstand the software if you think it is copy-pasting anything. It uses statistical models to choose words in a sentence sequentially.
>>24925065>>24925008Literary critics were using machine learning to evaluate prose and inform criticism in the 60s. These luddites don't know anything about the field.
>>24925065it’s sophisticated copy pasting, please don’t use it for anything other than referenced and searching and one dimensional tasks. There are freaks out there who are using it as a therapist and creating a relationship as if it’s actually an intelligent being. It cannot understand your work and it’s literally programmed to be affirming to the user
>>24925073>trusting any literary critic, specially from academialmao
>>24924920what's challenge mode
>>24925455Just ask it to use challenge mode; it stops being as sycophantic
>>24925443So I should trust some stranger on /lit/ instead of trusting a literary critic because I will take this stranger's word as a given?
>>24924920>>24924935These critiques are meaningless unless you compare it to good literature as well.What does it have to say about Shakespeare or Moby Dick in Challenge/Analysis mode?
>>24925468It still praised Moby-dick when I did that, I'll try Shakespeare next.
>>249254681. The Procreation Sonnets (1–17)These are rhetorically slick but thematically thin: the argument is basically “you’re beautiful, reproduce or you’re a moral failure.” The imagery (agriculture, accounting, inheritance) is clever, but the sequence repeats itself to exhaustion and carries an openly eugenic logic. Beauty is capital, ugliness is waste, reproduction is duty. There’s little love here—just moral pressure dressed as metaphysics. Rating: 6.0/10.2. The Fair Youth Love Sonnets (roughly 18–77 & 87–126)This is the real core of the collection. Here Shakespeare actually grapples with time, desire, mortality, and self-loathing. The best sonnets—18, 29, 30, 55, 60, 63–65, 73, 94, 116—pair brilliant formal control with genuine philosophical depth. But the sequence is uneven: many poems are padding (“my verse will immortalise you” stated six different ways). The speaker’s instability—swinging from worship to guilt to self-disgust—creates psychological richness but also incoherence. Still, these are the strongest sustained achievements. Rating: 8.7/10.3. The Rival Poet Sonnets (78–86)Conceptually interesting: Shakespeare stages artistic envy, writerly insecurity, and the fear of being outclassed. These are proto-career poems, and their pettiness is humanising. But emotionally they’re thin; the beloved becomes a trophy rather than a person. Several extended conceits feel like warm-ups rather than necessary poems. Rating: 6.7/10.4. The Dark Lady Sonnets (127–154)The most modern-feeling section: sex, disgust, hypocrisy, obsession. At their best (127, 129, 130, 138, 147) these poems are brutally honest about desire and self-deception. They dismantle Petrarchan beauty and expose lust as a trap. But misogyny is baked into the conceptual frame, not merely depicted. The woman becomes pathology, the male speaker becomes martyr. A few sonnets are outright weak (145, 153, 154). Still, the psychological rawness is compelling. Rating: 8.2/10.Overall Ranking:Fair Youth – 8.7Dark Lady – 8.2Rival Poet – 6.7Procreation – 6.0Read as a whole, the Sonnets aren’t a uniformly transcendent masterpiece; they’re a wildly uneven document of obsession, anxiety, lust, vanity, and self-mythologising. Their brilliance lies in the fractures.
>>24924935you need to recalibrate it every couple of prompts to be in analysis mode unless you use a preset configuration.i use chatgpt to check for weak spots. it's right in about 80% of my prompts.
>>24925002it clearly wasn't trained on japanese sources
>>24924935Now run it through Claude
>the machine programmed to tell me what I want to hear told me what I want to heargood for you buddy. hey look mine does it too
Ah yes the NYRB 8"the written word is always a good thing"
>>24926692It's better than posting shit here for no one to reply to.
>>24926670Harsher criticism with Claude but it feels rigid. It just said I was a misogynist when the entire text is a supposed to be interrogating the myth of violence through a satire of slasher tropes. AI really has no ability to read between the lines and spits out criticisms that any college major could.>Gender Politics: 2/10>This is the story's most severe failure. The misogyny is pervasive, uncritical, and exploitative. Women exist only as victims, shrews, or sexualized objects.Yikes! Just yikes!
>>24926807You can just tell it to give you a higher score too. These AI tools maybe aren't fit to be critique partners.
>>24924920...aaaand now your manuscript is owned by openAI. congratulations, you played yourself.
>>24924938I'm so glad we now have a machine to entertain these schizoids and they no longer plague ordinary humans with their insanity
According to ChatGPT, my writing is in the 7.5-9/10 range depending on the day. I do take what it says with a grain of salt however, because it can sometimes get offended easily at edgy content, and try to twist it to conform to a Reddit worldview.
>>24927061Ah yes because the magazines and publishing houses ran by blue haired enbies are so much better.
>>24927094Did you use analysis mode?
Be honest... should I end it all?
>>24927301Sometimes, the ratings are arbitrary. And it depends on your prompt. If you ask to rate it as a story generally, it will only give you the most criticism it can. Ask it to rate the story in its genre.
>>24927308ChatGPT says I don't have a genre. And I'm basically just indulging in endless character exploration anyway
>>24927316Just try something new with the next story. Take this as a learning step.
