>put them into AI and compared them to well-acclaimed work, prompting it to make the analysis as objective and fair as possible>review is 80% accurate; “it gets it” almost every time. Even if it disagrees, I can see the reasoning why and often agree with it>finally decided to submit one of them to a human coverage site>paid over $180 >the evaluation came back, and the reader practically didn’t understand anything. It felt like it was written by AI from a 2022 prompt to analyze every script based on the same generic formula, minus the technical accuracy. Truly terrible stuff. The AI age can't come soon enough.
humoids are so disgusting. i'm sorry that happened to you.
>>25322303>paying someone to review your screenplayyou got scammed, retard
>>25322312yeah i'm fully ai pilled now. I legitimately wanted informed criticism, the kind that would help me fine-tune the script further or improve my craft more generally, but there was none. the reviewer, if he even read it, didn’t compute the story at minimum threshold level, not structurally and definitely not tonally, and naturally wasn’t able to give any meaningful criticism.>>25322322how tf am i supposed to make some money without trying to engage with this retarded DEI market?
>>25322303>80% accurate>disagreesWhat do you mean by this?>>25322322Pretty much this>>25322344You'll make more money (not much) converting your screenplays to novellas and self-publishing them
I asked claude and GPT to review the review that i once got to my novel and screenplay, prompt them as completely anonymous and objective, and they absolutely exposed the reader as lazy fraud.
Guys, in all seriousness, how useful are LLMs for revision? I'm reluctant to let an AI indirectly shape my work by offering criticisms, but if the advice is genuinely good I'll do it.
I would enjoy seeing this thread at the top of the board instead of the bottom. Ergo, bump, etc.
>>253223031/2Yeah, AI is probably the superior choice. I think the next biggest choice would be a beta reader, som somebody who reads your entire work and gives critique. But those are really hard to find unless you make friends in a workshop group, and they will expect you to reciprocate the effort.The worst are workshop critiques. I go to one once a week, and for the most part the human critiques are awful. I'm only permitted to read 15 minutes worth of text (so about 2500 words) and then have to sit and listen to a bunch of people Usually 5-7 people "critique" my work. Which usually boils down to several things:1: Because the workshop is full of wokie liberals, if you write anything that they don't agree with, or if it has something they aren't 100% comfortable with, they will tell you because their need to virtue signal is never-ending. I've literally cursed them out for this. Worthless critique, will stop them mid-sentence and move to the next person.2: Surface level critiques about grammar, imagery, and dialogue3: Critiques about the plot4: One guy who actually provides something of consideration.And all of that takes 3 hours of my time to get, because I have to drive to workshop and sit for 3 hours listening to other people's shit work (lately they are obsessed with writing contests rather than actual passion projects and novels)
>>25322303>>25326145Now it's:1.Use AI to plan a scene. Put all the notes and items into Plottr.2 Write the scene out.3 Present to the AI model (Claude or Gemini) and have it critique my work.4: Because I pay for the premium plan I have the notebooks, and can dump the last 10-15 chapters and a shit ton of notes into the project folder.5: Provides actual feedback in under two minutes with no wokie bullshit, and advanced context based responses based on the provided supplementary materials, with rationales and reasons for WHY it thinks i should do something to the work.6: Repeat several times.7: Go to workshop, get the same critiques anyway, but now have Claude and Gemini write a chapter synopsyis and three goals for the readers.8: Still same process as above. Get bitched at by wokies, get bitched at by people who don't know about cars, computers, guns, etc., get retards who cannot strign together a basic impression of the work.9: Go home and sigh, give a copy to two dudes in the workshop who are not complete retards.10: Rinse and repeat.Either way the AI is 100% worth the money, I basically can get an extremely valuable critique every two minutes that has actionable content.
AI rated my recent feature script 86/100 under strict criteria (tested 70+ scripts, majority being either cult or canon work, forced it to approach each without prior knowledge), I unironically trust it much more than the average reader you get on the nicholl/final draft/blacklist etc. It wasn’t like this a year ago, or even a couple of months back. I’ve seen people claiming they don’t see any AI improvement, but it’s 100% because they don’t consistently stress test it with 100+ pages of work. The difference is huge, Now it’s practically almost as good as your academy reader but definitely more consistent
This may seem controversial but I think every poster in this thread should die. Including me. I don't want to live in the world you imagine simply because you seethe at one industry cog's opinion
>>25326621Anon, you don't understand how central to the future machines will be. Machines just ARE the future. The future is machines.
>>25325066AI advice can be useful because it pulls from an aggregated source of legitimate how-to-write books. But AI editing is terrible unless you specifically prompt it to only fix the grammar and nothing else. Otherwise, it will take the words you wrote and simply mix them with the limited paragraph or sentence templates it has. AI is very lazy and will keep using the same formula over and over. That’s why people can spot AI writing in an instant, even in YouTube videos.
