[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Nic_Pizzolatto.jpg (108 KB, 750x933)
108 KB JPG
Chat GPT suggested over 20 improvements to my story within seconds of posting it on there and they're all pretty much legitimate.
>>
damn, you must be an awful writer
>>
File: 1750463230435.png (147 KB, 317x347)
147 KB PNG
>>25250964
it probably thinks you're writing as a hobby and not a career.
>>
Uhhhhh......zased?
>>
I recall an editor stating that when they receive a draft amended by generative AI—whether GPT, Gemini, Grok, whatever—that it erases the author’s voice. Though it structurally mends a writer’s prose, it erases their identity and by “fixing” their structure, it makes it impossible for editors to detangle where AI begins. I can’t find where I saw them, but they’re essentially saying that by erasing structural problems AND voice, it’s impossible for human editors to discern where the author is lacking or holes in the author’s prose. Which means stories end up being weaker in execution while still sounding structurally sound. A pretty song with no heart.

At the very least, if you’re using AI to generate ideas or as a sounding board, ensure that you’re retaining your voice as an author as well as deliberately observing the true aspects to what makes or breaks your stories. Just because an AI can strip someone’s response online and regurgitate it to you in prettier words doesn’t mean it’ll always be correct—chances are it’ll be the opposite. Find actual friends or trusted individuals, online or otherwise, to serve as your abat-voix. Generative AI will just smooth over your work as an author; don’t let it.
>>
>>25251319
Agreed. Most of AI’s suggestions on revising is based on writer platitudes and cliches. Literally stuff like
>le show but don’t tell!
>get into the feeeeelings of the characters and don’t bog it down with other things
>i noticed this woman in the background wasn’t doing anything… how about you give her a line to show Agency™

At best, AI is good to show you typos and logical inconsistencies in the text
>>
>>25251319
that’s why you tell it the voice you’re aiming for and to focus on more editorial issues, and to never suggest prose
it can go too far though, it’ll always suggest reworking something and you have to draw the line
>>
>>25250964
Post story, I bet we'll make even better suggestions
>>
Wrong board, Mr. Pizzalatto.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.