Writing with AI

I’ve been working intensively with GPT4 for two weeks now to find out how AI can be used for editing texts and I’m finding lots of application examples to use it for my authoring work. Not, as some might think, for the original creation of texts, but for the revision of my existing manuscripts.
The idea came to me while I was revising my old manuscripts. I gave the AI the task of doing the following work in one go:

  • Eliminate word repetitions
  • revise text according to the “show don’t tell” method
  • To spell-check, grammar-check, and proofread.
  • Translate passive spelling into active spelling
  • to optimize the reading flow
  • To translate my German texts into English in parallel
    I gave the AI multiple tasks as a test - and it did them without any problems. The subsequent post-correction of the result was kept within limits and over all, the run was extremely helpful and time-saving.
    Now I read that more and more apps use plugins to include GPT4 with its features.
    Wouldn’t this be an ideal opportunity for Scrivener in an upcoming version to provide new features?
  • Spelling and grammar correction in ALL languages
  • Numerous applications for optimizing existing texts
  • Suggestions for plotting chapters and novels
    … I think of new applications to revise existing texts almost every day and some of them I already use.
    Wouldn’t that be a killer feature for Scrivener?


Yes. But perhaps not “killer” as you may think of it.

Basically, what you are saying is that GPT is your ghostwriter. (On top of proof reader, and editor, and translator – which are perhaps not as problematic as far as ethic goes (yet that’s debatable too) –, but fixing “show don’t tell”, passive into active, optimizing the reading flow and suggesting ideas/plotting… that IS writing.)


No, this is not what I have said. Read my post once again more carefully.
I know that some people, writer and and graphic designer, are very critical concerning the use of AI in creative processes, but I am not one of them.
If you claim, the AI would be my ghostwriter, then I have to return, for you it’s your spell checked and your lector then.
The AI services will come, if you like it or not and they will change everything.
You surely can decline it, it’s your personal decision. I have concluded to take advantage of it and found some parts of my workflow they can ease up.
To add AI-services to Scrivener was just an idea that came to my mind I wanted to share. I’m sure, I’m not the only one thinking about that and other tools already do it today.
People often argue, AI technology would erase or substitute creative jobs, but the opposite is the case, except for those people, who ignore and decline it. They may find themself one day to be not needed anymore.
ChatGPT4 is already able to optimize coding and has impact to other fields. It’s not wise to ignore it.


Do you know what a ghostwriter is ?

No, I don’t. I’m writing first since 25 years.

You may have missed the point, that I am only thinking about to use AI capabilities working on existing manuscripts I have written by myself but … nevermind.

You have the ideas. OK

I hear “ghostwriter”. Sorry.

Except your ghostwriter isn’t human. Has no imagination. Has no creative abilities other than emulating it. Recycles other people’s ideas and formulations.

You should investigate about the copyright issue(sssssss) that comes with this.


No sorry needed. I can live with your opinion.
But what it tells me, you have no clue about how AI works and just repeat what people “believe”, also concerning copyright.
Imagine all what you have written in your life, how it was influenced or inspired by other authors. So have you probably violated copyright?
I know, there are no copyright issues with AI, because it doesn’t work like you think.
So take some time and study the process of it and we can discuss it further.
I’m open to it.

1 Like

There is nothing to discuss.
I can turn it any which way in my head, if you feed something an idea of yours and it spits you out a better written version of it, you did not write it.
(I am not talking grammar check here.
I mean you fed the idea to something that lightening fast tweaked and tweaked and retweaked it for you, it is it “who” is to be considered as the writer behind it.)


Not an idea but an existing manuscript. So same for you, if your lector or corrector is suggesting changes you put in as corrections. I see no difference.
But what I’ve learned once again is to hold back on ideas and feedback in forums like this, because instead of just taking the feedback, it gets talked up and loaded with negative arguments. This is unfortunately a common behavior in many author forums, where everyone thinks they are right and explain to the other what they “don’t understand”. For this reason, the L&L forum is the only forum where I am still registered.
It’s probably better if I stop writing about my workflow and expand it as I see fit. Sharing Insights apparently usually leads to discussions that don’t end so pleasantly and you don’t need that.


Are you gonna thank GPT at the end of your book ?


I see you’re trying to provoke me, but you’re not succeeding.
@AmberV Is this the new way, posts are being treated in this forum? If so, I am very disappointed.

Not at all.
Only that I see huge discrepancies in what you are saying.
Contradictions you blind yourself to, because they would otherwise be in conflict with what is the genuine part of your creativity.

1 Like

I disagree to your conclusion and I guess we will find no agreement in this matter.

I’m not sure what you’re asking of me here. People are allowed to disagree with you and debate the merits of what you are speaking on. So long as everyone stays nice about it and we don’t get into a name-calling session, then I do not understand the problem (from a policy/moderation standpoint; obviously if one is not personally comfortable with how a conversation is going they can and should step away from it).


Alright, I was wrong.


:thinking: I love the smell of irony in the morning.


I appreciated your sharing. I spent several hours with GPT 4 yesterday and I plan to spend a lot more time on it as I can see that it is quite useful. It is stupid regarding creativity and has severe limitations but is a useful factotum but you have to really know your topic (I’m in non-fiction). If you do not want to publicly share your workflow then we can PM.

1 Like

There are already 3rd party writing tools coming out in the market. I recently posted a list of writing tools and on close inspection at least two of them were AI. More are coming.

If L&L were to use AI I would think that it would be better as a stand alone program rather than try to integrate it into Scrivener, that intuitively seems like it would be a nightmare to try and get it to work.


Hmm I tried that just as an experiment and I ran into a major roadblock as it will not allow you to have a story line that counters WOKE values.

Try asking it to develop a story line in which the world collapses in the future because of unforeseen consequences of feminism. It was hilarious. I was told that such things would never happen because feminism is perfect. Or that the protagonist finds a secret stash of feminist books and reignites the feminist revolution, or he meets a mysterious woman who is an apostle of feminism who re-educates him about the truths of feminism ad infinitum. Despite the plot device that feminism had something to do with the current plight. No matter how I worked it GPT4 tried to revive feminism as the savior of humanity. I was laughing :joy: by the time it was over. Clearly GTP4 wants you to think along certain lines and you can not cross that line. Big Nurse is in charge. :innocent:

So you would have to either stay clear of plots that veer into Woke territory. Or if you do you have to finesse your way through it.

For example you cannot ask for instructions on how to build a bomb, but if you have a character in the novel that makes a bomb you could trick GPT4 to provide instructions.

Also when I asked certain questions it referenced mostly well known left biased sources. You have to tell it to only cite unbiased sources.

It is actually quite stupid.