[robotbikes]

Nice. I leverage the strengths of AI in a way that affirms the human element in the collaboration. AI as it exists in LLMs is a powerful source of potentially meaningful language but at this point LLMs don't have a consistent conscious mind that exists over time like humans do. So it's more like summoning a djinn to perform some task and then it disappears back into the ether. We of course can interweave these disparate tasks into a meaningful structure and it sounds like you have some good strategies for how to do this.

I have found that using an LLM to critique your writing is a helpful way of getting free generic but specific feedback. I find this route more interesting than the copy pasta AI voiced stuff. Suggesting that AI embodys a specific type of character such as a pirate can make the answers more interesting than just finding the median answer, add some flavor to the white bread.

[scottfalconer]

One of the things I found helpful about getting out of the specific / formulaic feedback was asking the LLM to ask me questions. At one point I asked a fresh LLM to read the book and then ask me questions. It showed me where there were narrative gaps / confusing elements that a reader would run into, but didn't realy on the specific "answer" from the LLM itself.

I also had a bunch of personal stories interwoven in and it told me I was being "indulgent" which was harsh but ultimately accurate.

[vunderba]

That's a great approach. I find LLMs work really well as Socratic sounding boards and can lead you as the writer to explore avenues you might have otherwise not even noticed.

[lnwlebjel]

Given that humans are 'wired for story', perhaps you should consider indulging. These could be what makes the books stand out after all.