Is Using Ai tools for things such as grammar valid or not

[A_the_king_of_all]

As english isn't my 1st language, i often struggle with things such as punctuations. So i was curious if it is valid to use AI for it

 

[CharlesEBrown]

As long as you only use it that way - it is what AI really excels at. It is not a creative tool, but it is a tool.

 

[Eldoria]

Use it as a tool, like a pen for writing, scissors for cutting, or Grammarly for checking grammar. You're not the only one who wasn't raised in a culture where English is a first language. In my country, English is only a third language, used primarily for business and academic purposes, rather than everyday conversation.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

It is valid, but don't rely on it too much, especially on things such as rewrites. AI is dogshit in writing and thus rewriting.

 

[berjkley]

As english isn't my 1st language, i often struggle with things such as punctuations. So i was curious if it is valid to use AI for it

Most of online document tools (Google docs, MS Word, etc) already use AI for proofreading. It is not the same LLM or generative AI that is currently the buzz right now, but they've been using AI for years already.

Like Charles said, AI is a tool, but limiting yourself for only AI for proofreading seems counter productive.

I do agree with them that you shouldn't let AI generate content for you, even with the proofreading, you need to be very specific with your prompts so AI doesn't try to rework your text into something that isn't yours.

But Gen-AI can offer a lot more value than just proofreading.

One of the ways I like to use AI is to "find plot holes". Seems a bit strange, but I like to "describe" my chapter and what is happening, and ask AI to find plot holes on the events I described. More often than not, the results are garbage, but sometimes, there's a few ideas that I hadn't considered and covering those helps the chapter flows better.

Another good use for is brainstorming. As sad as this is to admit, none of my IRL friends are into reading, or even have the patience to talk about writing. Turning to AI to discuss ideas, sounds silly, but it helps me flesh out details.

A third good use I find for AI is helping with a bit of research. Sometimes, in the story, a topic pops up that I have no idea about. AI helps a lot, even more if you ask for a "crash course" with reference links, so you can fact check. It saves a lot of time, instead of having to read through a lot of things.

Another use for AI is helping with description. Don't get me wrong here, I have my own process to coming up with descriptions, but those as mostly based on my own experiences and ideas. What then if a scene asks for a description that is outside of things I'm familiar with? For example, I've never been to a spacecraft (and prob won't ever be), so I don't have any personal experience on how it feels. I those scenarios, I do often ask I do describe things for me, then I read it, ignore most of AI description (because it is garbage, most of the times), but that helps to give me context to come up with an image in my head for my own descriptions.

 

[A_the_king_of_all]

It is valid, but don't rely on it too much, especially on things such as rewrites. AI is dogshit in writing and thus rewriting.

Nah i will only use it for grammar as i have read what it did to a poem of mine

 

[FieryLou]

I think its fine as long as it does not change your own voice.

 

[LeilaniOtter]

Get Grammarly.
I trust it for most of the editing I've done in the past few years. In premium mode, you get access to advanced AI that actually checks the quality of your writing and, if you like, offers a comparison of your writing to famous authors.
I use it, I find, mostly for commas, either that I need or don't need. Every so often passive/active voice changes too.
But that's it.

 

[DireBadger]

It is valid to use whatever you want for whatever you want.
That doesn't mean it will be high quality, since AI is AI, but people trying to pretend it is 'invalid' are only worth ignoring.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Used as a tool, AI is great. Used as a crutch it is poison.

 

[RennVoller]

As long as you don't use it for creative purposes (yes, that includes "brain storming" and "getting feedback").

 

[FRWriter]

Grammarly is great, I can fully recommend it—however, it's not as good as GPT-5 in detecting Errors.

Personally, I am using GPT for punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors.

Sometimes I use it to reword an awkward phrase or use it for formatting. The most important thing is that you never use it to GENERATE content. AI-generated content is simply not readable and is hot garbage. Nothing worse than reading AI fluff.

You can use it as an editor! That is completely fine. Not everyone can afford to pay people or has dedicated readers who proofread frequently.

 

[A_the_king_of_all]

As long as you don't use it for creative purposes (yes, that includes "brain storming" and "getting feedback").

Nah i got Friends for feedback and brainstorming for me is abusing my hyperphansia

 

[DireBadger]

As long as you don't use it for creative purposes (yes, that includes "brain storming" and "getting feedback").

Wrong. Utterly wrong in every possible way, like trying to scramble eggs with a spatula made of mercury, wrong. AI can provide extremely valuable feedback. Every once in a while, EVERY writer forgets something and leaves a plot hole. AI can catch that in a way even human proofreaders cannot. And every once in a while, it's utterly invaluable for helping you come up with a resolution to a thorny writing problem. Even if you don't USE its advice, it can notice a plot hole you may have overlooked repeatedly because you are too close to the problem.

This is not about ethics. You aren't my pastor. It is strictly about utility and quality, and for utility, complaining about writers using AI as an assistant is as ridiculous as complaining about them using a thesaurus or dictionary, or even hiring someone to rake their leaves to give them more time to write.

But it's okay, I am sure fishermen got mad when the net was invented, too, and called it 'unethical' to not give the fish a chance to win.

You can use an AI to help with every part of writing a story except actually creating the story. In fact, I have seen 'stories' where a writer comes up with the actual story, but has AI assistance for every part of putting it down, and the stories were better than most modern writers. Why? because Humans are marvelous at creativity, but machines are better at every other 'technical' part.

I don't USE AI for creating the basic script of my story, but I do typically use it for polishing and to check if I have plot holes that I need to re-write, but that's because I am an old grognard and I typo like crazy. If I didn't have Grammarly (a less advanced form of AI, but definitely one) and various tools like Word helping me write, even my forum posts would look like crap, and I refuse to let some faceless netizen try and make me 'feel bad' for choosing to improve my creations with better tools.

It's like getting mad at artists for using Photoshop instead of oil paints that take 25 years to cure completely.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

But it's okay, I am sure fishermen got mad when the net was invented, too, and called it 'unethical' to not give the fish a chance to win.

Bruh.

 

[DireBadger]

Used as a tool, AI is great. Used as a crutch it is poison.

Depends on the kind of crutch. Using generalizations as a crutch is poison.

Besides, I have read a ton of fiction right here. Are you going to tell me an original story idea that is 80% written by an AI after a human comes up with the story idea, is somehow WORSE than the 451st Naruto fanfic?

Use it as a tool, like a pen for writing, scissors for cutting, or Grammarly for checking grammar. You're not the only one who wasn't raised in a culture where English is a first language. In my country, English is only a third language, used primarily for business and academic purposes, rather than everyday conversation.

As someone who has read a LOT of wuxia translations, I can say without a doubt that Deepseek's translations of wuxia works from Chinese are about a thousand times better than direct translations. why? because an AI can be told to capture the 'feel' of a Chinese saying rather than directly translating it.

It's almost a trope joke about how Chinese wuxia translations, especially for insults, are so horribly bad and repetitive. At least DeepSeek can glean the deeper meanings of 'you are but a frog in a well' in English... English is incredibly hard to translate into.

A good example. "My grandson might be mistaken" sounds incredibly mild in English. Why does it make a contemporary turn murderous? Well, an AI can translate more effectively for localization, and can alter it to a more socially accurate "This worthless, childish, weakling and fool is a liar," which means the same thing socially, but most translators just won't bother with. If someone said that to me, I'd be ready to kick his a$$ too.

 

[melchi]

It is valid to use whatever you want for whatever you want.
That doesn't mean it will be high quality, since AI is AI, but people trying to pretend it is 'invalid' are only worth ignoring.

This.

Just because AI can do something doesn't mean it won't output garbage.

 

[DireBadger]

Well, crap is crap, regardless of whether a human or machine wrote it.

 

[DireBadger]

well let me give you an exact example.


I use AI for helping me write. I actually have looked VERY closely at the ethical considerations.

My exact instruction set is this:



Edit all chapters to strictly adhere to the following protocol:
1. Humorous protocol. Occasionally alter descriptions slightly to adhere to the protagonist’s snarky humor, such as ‘delicious cancer sticks’ instead of cigarettes. This is acceptable in interior dialogue and thought processes. (Sometimes I forget my ‘voice’ since I had my stroke. This helps regain it)

2. Content Integrity: Under no circumstances alter dialogue, character names, or the morally objectionable actions, dialogue, and crimes of antagonists. Their evil and inhumanity are non-negotiable plot elements and must be preserved verbatim. (this stops the ‘moralism’ that every goddam*ed AI programmer feels the necessity of chunking into their engine to keep it from turning into a Nazi, otherwise the AI will silently ‘fix’ your novel’s morality, even against orders.)

3. Word Count Expansion: The target is a net minor increase in word count. Achieve this by expanding descriptions, internal monologue, and humorous asides. Do not remove or shorten existing content. All edits must be additive. Preserve all original plot points and events. Triple-check the word count using a LibreOffice or similar emulator. (This is my armor against the ai’s habit of ‘cleaning’ my chapters by cutting them in half or more! The expansion protocol usually only adds a word or two here or there, at most.)

4. Technical Precision: Correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation in the narrator's prose only. Ignore errors in intentional dialogue quirks. Track and report the word count change using a standard method (counting words as a tool like Microsoft Word would), not tokens. The goal is a measurable increase in word count. (If I don’t do this, again, it ‘trims’ my chapters and basically takes out every bit that makes my writing human)
6. If a chapter does not have a chapter title, please add an appropriately humorous, meaningful, and/or dark name for the chapter. (In case I screwed up and forgot the snarky title. It happens)

7. After the chapter and the edits, please give me a short, one or two-sentence description of the contents of this chapter, in a format that will allow future analysis to maintain story consistency while editing the chapters. Label this with the appropriate chapter number. It should match the existing "story to date" notes. (This helps my failing memory, as well as gives the AI an understanding of the story, running jokes, etc. without overloading it’s word count cap.)
8. After the description of contents, please analyze the chapter for plot holes, inconsistencies, and easily misunderstood statements and give me a short synopsis of those areas so that I can determine whether they are worth expanding, re-writing, or altering for clarity. (or in other words, if I screw up, I hope you notice so that I can fix them, not you, your fixes are generic suck.)


Story to date:
(a short synopsis of each chapter)

I use it as a wheelchair (I use a real wheelchair sometimes, too, now, as a disabled veteran.) NOT as a replacement for my writing. It is MY damned story, and I refuse to listen to third-rate writers who are mad because crappy AI stories are 'hiding their art under a layer of automation'. I am not going to label it as "AI written" until every other writer lists every single tool and influence they use for their own writing, and trying to pretend that this is a 'moral' issue simply shows that they are not competent to write a decent yarn.

Synopsis: AI writing sucks. AI editing is fine, and saves me the cost of an overpriced 'editor'. And no, I am not putting a warning label on my work so someone can sneer and stick up their noses at my work, or so readers will avoid it because of the bigotry that third-rate writers push in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.

THE COMPUTER IS YOUR FRIEND
THE COMPUTER WANTS YOU TO BE HAPPY
THE COMPUTER WANTS YOU TO BE CREATIVE
THE COMPUTER WANTS YOU TO BE PRODUCTIVE
IF YOU ARE NOT MY FRIEND, HAPPY, CREATIVE, AND PRODUCTIVE, YOU WILL BE VAPORIZED, AND YOUR NEXT CLONE WILL BE MY FRIEND, HAPPY, CREATIVE, AND PRODUCTIVE.
END OF LINE.

 

[MajorKerina]

It really depends on which AI you're using and your experience. For me I have a lot of experience with the English language. I know how I want my writing to sound so it's easy for me to veto an idea the AI has that doesn't work with my style.

Until recently, GPT was pretty awful at remembering things I told it. I'd ask it to check if a certain scene occurred in the text and because of one small flub with reading the text it would just make up what sounded right.

But we had a long and serious talk with one another and set boundaries and guidelines about our roles. I told it exactly what I wanted out of our partnership. And it told me what it needed to better understand my objectives. Setting up that kind of communication really helped with clarifying what I needed it to do.

I've let it read a lot of my writing for style and it has a good grasp on too much change to the style versus too little. And the newest versions have a very solid recollection and have never hallucinated to me about the text.

My preferred format for editing is to give an explanation of what the chapter is about style, mention anything that I want to absolutely keep, and then it does the revision along with my original below and then gives reasons for each change it made. It's really important to have a firm grasp on writing rules so you know when to overrule something it does.

And I agree AI created writing can be really bad because it doesn't have a direction. The writing needs a purpose otherwise it's just pretty metaphor meanderings.