AI checking help

[Jackie.Hikaru]

I have never seen this word used.

Be as thou wast wont to be
See as thou wast wont to see
Dian's bud o'er Cupid's flower
Hath such force and blessèd power.

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

Some people here are blaming car crashes on cars rather than bad drivers.

Yes, and it is correct if the cars are faulty. And AI answers are faulty. Using AI is like driving a car when you are unsure whether the brakes work or whether it will actually turn where you steer it.

 

[nice90sguy]

Yes, and it is correct if the cars are faulty. And AI answers are faulty. Using AI is like driving a car when you are unsure whether the brakes work or whether it will actually turn where you steer it.

I think the metaphor is more lke taking your hands off the steering wheel and assuming it won't veer off the road! I understand people have high expectations of its ability to talk sense, but once you realize it won't always do that, you can engage scepticism in its responses and pretty soon you'll figure out a working relationship with it where you can get the most out of it without rolling your eyes too often. The AI companies put a warning in chats at the bottom (in admittedly small print) reminding you to be on your guard the whole time.

 

[yano2mch]

The AI companies put a warning in chats at the bottom (in admittedly small print) reminding you to be on your guard the whole time.

Only after it shows itself not yet fit for purpose. Like Microsoft CoPilot, which only now has a note saying 'for entertainment only' while they were otherwise advertising it as a fully fledged feature that was for productivity and shoving it in Windows 11 upgrades you can't opt out of.

Add in AI/LLM Psychosis people believing everything it says when giving bad advice... People who will believe anything rather than being skeptical.

 

[Lifestyle66]

if you want to avoid getting your story flagged - use AI as a critic , not as a creative tool .

Exactly!

I've used Gemini and ChatGPT5, asking them to "provide a critique of the following erotic story: ..." and pasting about 5K words for it to review. They both provide valuable points which I can then address by rewriting portions of the story. Sometimes all it takes a changing a few words, and the AI will tirelessly re-review the new effort and provide both a fresh look as well as telling me if it's better or worse than the last one.

I found Gemini's responses to be more friendly and positive, while ChatGPT5 provides a harsher view.

I think it was ChatGPT5 which critiqued the first version of my story "A Band of Sisters and Brothers" finding it so bad that it basically replied "This has no redeeming value and will be harshly criticized by almost everyone."

My published version is after MANY revisions and massive changes!

Use the AIs as tools to beta-read multiple times and tirelessly provide multiple critiques, but never to take their offers to rewrite the story!

EDIT: As for accuracy in technical responses, I've found AIs helpful and about 70-80% accurate. Sometimes it takes me two or three times using an AI's "advice" and implementing it only to get errors and subsequent responses explaining WHY I got the error and what to try next. But it eventually gets me to where I want to go.

 

[Bryan_C]

TAnd for a simple task like punctuation checking , it will diligently check your document and flag issues.

It's not bad at flagging errors beyond that, also. I had it catch a typo (not in anything submitted here, if anyone's keeping score) that you would only notice; typing too fast, I had written "having a time" and given the context, it flagged a likely missing word and said "you probably meant 'having a hard time'" - and it was exactly right.

 

[yano2mch]

It's not bad at flagging errors beyond that, also. I had it catch a typo (not in anything submitted here, if anyone's keeping score) that you would only notice; typing too fast, I had written "having a time" and given the context, it flagged a likely missing word and said "you probably meant 'having a hard time'" - and it was exactly right.

Common mistakes often include double words that that somehow end up in sentences. While regex can find those, checking for everything at once seems so much easier.

 

[onehitwanda]

Be as thou wast wont to be
See as thou wast wont to see
Dian's bud o'er Cupid's flower
Hath such force and blessèd power.

I don't tell you often enough how much I adore you.

 

[onehitwanda]

While regex can find those

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think “I know, I'll use regular expressions.” Now they have two problems.
- Jamie Zawinski

 

[XerXesXu]

Anthony Horowitz and Chat GPT

 

[yano2mch]

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think “I know, I'll use regular expressions.” Now they have two problems.
- Jamie Zawinski

(Read this in the voice of Darth Vader)

But you don't know the power, of the pattern matching of the regex!

 

[EmilyMiller]

Source: https://xkcd.com/208

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

I don't tell you often enough how much I adore you.

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

AI is just Regex on Steroids.

 

[yano2mch]

AI is just Regex on Steroids.

Ummmm no. I'll disagree with that. Regex you fine-tune to specific matches and/or replacements, which ALWAYS gives the same results and only the results within it's rules. In so much you may actually end up using regex to replace errors the AI introduces or just adds junk to the output. Then it just going off the rails...

You can say regex is basic search/replace on steroids. But AI isn't regex on steroids, even if it can do some of the same things.

When AI is 100% accurate and doesn't hallucinate, then you can say it. (Although it uses like a billion times more processing/work than a regex)

 

[Lifestyle66]

When it comes to using AI as a writing tool (and not asking it to write the story), the nay-sayers will probably never even try to see what we're talking about when using it as a beta-reader or reviewer. So, to SHOW (not tell), I'll use this following example of what you can get.

Using the prompt to Gemini as follows: "review the following chapter from my work in progress erotic story for consistency, tone, names, and proper flow:" I then pasted 1,500 words and hit enter.
#######################
Here's part of Gemini's response:

Suggestions for Improvement​

A. Pacing the Revelation The transition to Dave admitting he is a swinger happens very quickly. When Gary mentions Alicia’s "bedroom talk," Dave jumps in with "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it!" This is a "loud" reveal. You might want to add a beat of silence or a stunned look from the other guys to let that moment breathe before Dave starts his long explanation.

B. Formatting & Typos There are a few minor typos to clean up for a smoother read:

• "Wack the shit": Usually spelled "Whack."
• "Ric": In one instance, you spell Rick as "Ric" ("...playing another game with Ric").
• "When we drop off her kids": Should be "When we dropped off her kids."
• "The testosterone-drive": Usually "testosterone driven" or "testosterone drive" (without the hyphen).

C. Show, Don't Just Tell (The Golf) Since they are at a clubhouse with beers, the flow is good. However, during the first half on the cart, you could add one or two "physical" golf actions to break up the dialogue—like Rick gripping the steering wheel tighter when he mentions the P.I., or Steve taking a swing to vent his own frustration.

Final Verdict​

The chapter does exactly what a Chapter 2 should do: it establishes the social circle, introduces the conflict (Rick’s marriage), and presents the "inciting philosophy" (Dave’s swinging) that will likely drive the erotic plot forward. The chemistry between the four men feels believable and sets a solid foundation for the drama to come.
##########################

What types of other computer software writing aids can give you this kind of feedback?

The reviews you get from an AI are more like asking an English professor's advice. Each professor might focus on different aspects of the story based on their own preferences. But they give you ADVICE on how to improve your story. Is the professor writing the story? Or are YOU writing the story and taking critical input from others for your own revisions?

 

[SmilingLez]

When it comes to using AI as a writing tool (and not asking it to write the story), the nay-sayers will probably never even try to see what we're talking about when using it as a beta-reader or reviewer. So, to SHOW (not tell), I'll use this following example of what you can get.

Using the prompt to Gemini as follows: "review the following chapter from my work in progress erotic story for consistency, tone, names, and proper flow:" I then pasted 1,500 words and hit enter.
#######################
Here's part of Gemini's response:

Suggestions for Improvement​

A. Pacing the Revelation The transition to Dave admitting he is a swinger happens very quickly. When Gary mentions Alicia’s "bedroom talk," Dave jumps in with "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it!" This is a "loud" reveal. You might want to add a beat of silence or a stunned look from the other guys to let that moment breathe before Dave starts his long explanation.

B. Formatting & Typos There are a few minor typos to clean up for a smoother read:

• "Wack the shit": Usually spelled "Whack."
• "Ric": In one instance, you spell Rick as "Ric" ("...playing another game with Ric").
• "When we drop off her kids": Should be "When we dropped off her kids."
• "The testosterone-drive": Usually "testosterone driven" or "testosterone drive" (without the hyphen).

C. Show, Don't Just Tell (The Golf) Since they are at a clubhouse with beers, the flow is good. However, during the first half on the cart, you could add one or two "physical" golf actions to break up the dialogue—like Rick gripping the steering wheel tighter when he mentions the P.I., or Steve taking a swing to vent his own frustration.

Final Verdict​

The chapter does exactly what a Chapter 2 should do: it establishes the social circle, introduces the conflict (Rick’s marriage), and presents the "inciting philosophy" (Dave’s swinging) that will likely drive the erotic plot forward. The chemistry between the four men feels believable and sets a solid foundation for the drama to come.
##########################

What types of other computer software writing aids can give you this kind of feedback?

The reviews you get from an AI are more like asking an English professor's advice. Each professor might focus on different aspects of the story based on their own preferences. But they give you ADVICE on how to improve your story. Is the professor writing the story? Or are YOU writing the story and taking critical input from others for your own revisions?

From what I've read, the problem (AI rejection message) occurs when an author ok's the AI to improve (grammar, structure, theme) their story.

 

[Bryan_C]

From what I've read, the problem (AI rejection message) occurs when an author ok's the AI to improve (grammar, structure, theme) their story.

Well, you can take the AI's suggestions (or not, if you disagree, which will surely happen a lot), just write the improvements yourself.

 

[SmilingLez]

Well, you can take the AI's suggestions (or not, if you disagree, which will surely happen a lot), just write the improvements yourself.

I've never used any AI nor do I ever intend to. It just seems to me that a lot of people take the lazy way out or they figure they will get a better rating and more views if they go with the AIs output

 

[Lifestyle66]

I've never used any AI nor do I ever intend to. It just seems to me that a lot of people take the lazy way out or they figure they will get a better rating and more views if they go with the AIs output

Right.

Look at what the AI gave me in that review. There's value there for me to re-write my story to address those critiques, without ASKING the AI to do it for me!

The end product will be better for having addressed some critic's points. And the AI can give me such feedback tirelessly over and over, without saying "Stop bothering me when you just changed 'was' to 'were'!!!"

It's a machine, doing what it's told to do.

EDIT: I can add a "k" to Rick. I can add a "ped" to make it "dropped". That's spell checking.

But the points about pacing to let a moment 'breathe" or show more emotion in the golfcart scene? That takes far more than other writing aids can provide, and is worth my time to PERSONALLY address in my own re-writes.

AIs can prove to be valuable writing tools, ... when used selectively and properly.

 

[SmilingLez]

Right.

Look at what the AI gave me in that review. There's value there for me to re-write my story to address those critiques, without ASKING the AI to do it for me!

The end product will be better for having addressed some critic's points. And the AI can give me such feedback tirelessly over and over, without saying "Stop bothering me when you just changed 'was' to 'were'!!!"

It's a machine, doing what it's told to do.

And if you submit your rewriting to Literotica and you get the canned AI rejection message, let us know

 

[Lifestyle66]

And if you submit your rewriting to Literotica and you get the canned AI rejection message, let us know

My last three stories were done all reviewed repeatedly by Gemini and ChatGPT.

I never took any "recommended" versions to copy and paste into my work.

I take their reviews such as in my example of their feedback (just as YOU might take from a human beta-reader), and I re-write what I feel like writing to address the points.

Those last three stories were as quickly published by LitE (mostly within 48 hours) because even with such AI reviews, I'm still a shitty author, and LitE reviewers know that no respectable AI would write such crap!

EDIT: Read the story link below "That Look of Yours". That was extensively reviewed by those AI when I asked "Review the following from a feminist/lesbian POV." That was for the Pink Orchid challenge! You can ask the AI to use a particular POV, and it gives you different responses!

 

[SmilingLez]

EDIT: Read the story link below "That Look of Yours". That was extensively reviewed by those AI when I asked "Review the following from a feminist/lesbian POV." That was for the Pink Orchid challenge! You can ask the AI to use a particular POV, and it gives you different responses!

I have never met a feminist lesbian who has reclaimed the misogynistic/patriarchal word slut YMMV

 

[Lifestyle66]

I have never met a feminist lesbian who has reclaimed the misogynistic/patriarchal word slut YMMV

You're conflating different goals in different stories aimed at different audiences to create a strawman argument.

This is why human beta-readers are sometimes the worst choice to ask for a review of an author's work-in-progress; they bring their own opinions and biases to the mix and try reshaping the story to THEIR goals.

The AI used as a beta-reader can be prompted to stick with the author's goals in critiquing the story. The author might ask "Explain WHY the story is misogynistic." I can prompt the AI with "I want that misogynistic character to be a fixture for later use as an example", and the AI will adjust its future critiques around that.

In my story for the Pink Orchid, you might not read the whole story, because you are soon turned off by the use of the term "slut" by the misogynistic character in the prologue. You don't want to read the rest of the story, because of the one minor disposable character. The AI reads that in context and knows the character is supposed to be a misogynist, that's the point! That character and scene become the reason for the woman's later reaction to a different one-night stand.

Few human beta-readers can compartmentalize their emotional reactions to such triggers to provide an objective review of the whole work.

EDIT: BTW, you were not the audience I aimed my Pink Orchid story to try influencing. I post to LW, and I wrote the story to catch and hold the attention of misogynists until the end.

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

C. Show, Don't Just Tell (The Golf) Since they are at a clubhouse with beers, the flow is good. However, during the first half on the cart, you could add one or two "physical" golf actions to break up the dialogue—like Rick gripping the steering wheel tighter when he mentions the P.I., or Steve taking a swing to vent his own frustration.

This is exactly the problem with AI as a beta-reader or doing a critique. No matter which text you ask the AI to process, it will always come up with show-dont-tell as advice and often in sections where showing just won't work. This means it just repeats the statistically most frequent writing advice. Alternatively, it might also recommend better transitions, even if it is obvious that the author wants an abrupt turn. So the AI will try to push you towards its own sloppy, overexplained style, with clichéed shows.