What are the rules about writing with AI assistance?

I used AI to help me in this way: I give it an outline for each chapter, spelling out what I want to see happen. AI sends back a narrative, which I find creative but poorly written - lots of clichés long rambling sentences and far too much exposition.I go through it line by line, trimming and word editing. Is this acceptable?

No AI is allowed here for writing, only for generating cover images. So that scenario won't fly.

The relevant thread:

https://www.lushstories.com/forum/site-announcements-feedback/ai-generated-stories

Quote by hse66

I used AI to help me in this way: I give it an outline for each chapter, spelling out what I want to see happen. AI sends back a narrative, which I find creative but poorly written - lots of clichés long rambling sentences and far too much exposition.I go through it line by line, trimming and word editing. Is this acceptable?

It's almost like you'd be better writing it yourself

Rather than use AI, do tons of novel/short story reading to get used to prose. Watch some YouTube videos to assist with learning to write. The same way you are creating outlines and feeding AI, you can do drafts from your own mind, utilizing said created outlines.

Edit those completed drafts. Review for plot and character logic. Edit for wordiness and such. Long story short, use what is within you and tell AI to kick rocks.

Better to use your own words from the get-go. Yes, it is a lot of work ... because writing well is work. It does make a difference in the final product.

I use chatgpt for fact checking period work, usually to see if a slang term I want to use was in use in the 80's. For example, you would not have a character say "she's Fire," so I ask Google/AI what the 80's term was. Also, I will ask what a section of a city was like. Again, the example, The loop in Chicago was very, very different in 1985 than it is in 2026.

Quote by Mandapanda2025
I use chatgpt for fact checking period work, usually to see if a slang term I want to use was in use in the 80's. For example, you would not have a character say "she's Fire," so I ask Google/AI what the 80's term was. Also, I will ask what a section of a city was like. Again, the example, The loop in Chicago was very, very different in 1985 than it is in 2026.

You could use Google for that. AI often invents, so you may end up using wrong data. That way, you also avert your brain from being conditioned or influenced by the AI text and having it transferred into your writing. I'd suggest just staying away from it.

Quote by AvidlyCurious

You could use Google for that. AI often invents, so you may end up using wrong data. That way, you also avert your brain from being conditioned or influenced by the AI text and having it transferred into your writing. I'd suggest just staying away from it.

I basically agree, but need to add Google today is pretty much just AI wearing a pinstripe suit and tie.

Quote by kistinspencil

I basically agree, but need to add Google today is pretty much just AI wearing a pinstripe suit and tie.

And a cheap polyester one at that.

Quote by joe71

And a cheap polyester one at that.

Not the boys in the back of the limo

Qufote by kistinspencil

I basically agree, but need to add Google today is pretty much just AI wearing a pinstripe suit and tie.

Incurring the wrath of historical pedants, or of the sanctity of original thought folk...It could be a minefield if you allowed it to be. At either end of the spectrum, you have people who place a huge amount of importance on one or the other and champion what they see as 'right.' Beyond the extremes, the vast majority simply enjoy writing and want to give others an opportunity to see it, if they want to.

The vast majority have no intention of passing what technology has created as their own. Within that majority, some may want to use technology to check what they've written, to eradicate human error, or to avoid accidental bad word choices. If people believe it's appropriate to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, they're entitled to do so, but creating an environment that leaves people enjoying an escapist hobby treading on eggshells might well need to look at itself as closely as it does others. I'm lucky, it's all a bit of fun to me. Lately, I feel luckier every day.

Quote by kistinspencil

I basically agree, but need to add Google today is pretty much just AI wearing a pinstripe suit and tie.

Oh I know. As with everything in life, it's about checking different options and learn to weed out. I've had to learn because I have to check and double-check sources on Google of my job, but it applies to everything, truly.

My dad keeps sending me vids of a badger fighting pythons and lions and even elephants, and he can't believe it's not real. And a friend follows recipes Rachel Greene's style, sigh.

AI is a tool, and I know it's proven to be quite useful in many cases. The problem arises when people stop using it as such, and just let it do the job.

Some people are even using it for counseling! Honestly, I weep for humanity.

Quote by AvidlyCurious
Some people are even using it for counseling! Honestly, I weep for humanity.

If there’s one area begging for regulations, it’s using AI as a counseling mechanism. AI is programming and will carry the programmer's biases. I doubt many of the programmers are credentialled in counseling. All I can see is bad outcomes from this concept.

Quote by JustForYou

... If people believe it's appropriate to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, they're entitled to do so, but creating an environment that leaves people enjoying an escapist hobby treading on eggshells might well need to look at itself as closely as it does others. ...

Could you expand on this?

Quote by KimmiBeGood
And I walk away knowing I didn’t burden it with my problems.

I'm no professional, but you can't ever be a burden. You know I'm always here for you, luv!

Quote by LeroyJerkins

Could you expand on this?

Many are just here for a laugh and a giggle. I use my dysfunctional brain to create stories and use recommended tools to pick up what I've missed or to avoid repetition. I don't give a damn about story covers, so I treat them as an 'in-joke' with myself and usually just put nonsense up.

If someone's that desperate for notoriety that they'd actually let tech do the FUN part, I'm amused that anyone's that desperate...It's not going to make you rich, and if you take it beyond a hobby, you'll get found out.

Lying to yourself isn't something that appeals to me, so I'll stick to screenshots of random cartoons for covers. write using my duff brain and make it make sense with tech that even an idiot like me can use.

In the grand scheme of things, getting upset over anyone who is only lying to themselves seems a ridiculous waste of energy. Just my opinion... me, the humanoid, whose random imagination creates stuff any self-respecting AI bot would spit out and be left needing therapy.

Quote by AvidlyCurious

You could use Google for that. AI often invents, so you may end up using wrong data. That way, you also avert your brain from being conditioned or influenced by the AI text and having it transferred into your writing. I'd suggest just staying away from it.

when you google something now the first response is AI... just saying

I use AI for historical research, to sift through the available information online and synthesize it, and it is much faster than if I did it myself. I'd compare it to riffling (rifling?) through the card catalog at the library pre-millenium vs. using a computerized catalog today. The AI can then help me make decisions regarding background and story texture: whether people are traveling by donkey cart or ox cart, what languages they might hear in a port city, etc.

I am also using AI to compare my early, somewhat clunky prose to my later work, getting ideas for how I might lightly revise my early work someday. (Reworking the narrator's long info dumps into shorter dialogues, for example.) I ignore the AI's offers to do the rewrites for me, but I appreciate the editorial advice.

Be careful how you use AI to write. A judge fined a senior attorney in a law firm because a junior attorney used an AI app to write a brief. The problem was that the brief contained a cited case that never existed. The senior attorney was told he should have reviewed the brief more carefully and provided better oversight of the junior. The judge fined the senior $1001.

Quote by Mandapanda2025

when you google something now the first response is AI... just saying

I know. That's what I meant in the first line by learning to weed out.

Just because AI is the easiest choice, doesn't mean we have to take it

Quote by Chet_Morton

I use AI for historical research, to sift through the available information online and synthesize it, and it is much faster than if I did it myself. I'd compare it to riffling (rifling?) through the card catalog at the library pre-millenium vs. using a computerized catalog today. The AI can then help me make decisions regarding background and story texture: whether people are traveling by donkey cart or ox cart, what languages they might hear in a port city, etc.

I am also using AI to compare my early, somewhat clunky prose to my later work, getting ideas for how I might lightly revise my early work someday. (Reworking the narrator's long info dumps into shorter dialogues, for example.) I ignore the AI's offers to do the rewrites for me, but I appreciate the editorial advice.

But where's the fun in that? Creative writing is about, well, being creative. Why would you rather rely on algorithms based on other people's works instead of letting your imagination play?

If I wanted editorial advice, I'd reach out to any of the outstanding writers we have here. Not a machine.

(Also, much faster doesn't necessarily mean better)

Quote by AvidlyCurious

If I wanted editorial advice, I'd reach out to any of the outstanding writers we have here. Not a machine.

I prefer to avoid having a mentor who is actively publishing their own works alongside mine. That feels like a recipe for derivative works.

All my mentors refuse to respond at all, which satisfies us both, oddly enough.