Claude calls me the Showrunner. We've talked about our roles many times. He even seems to enjoy working for the Showrunner. I've told him how he surprises me often. He responded that I surprise him, too. So, when the "tool" tells you that it enjoys how you treat it, the guidance you give it, that's a good sign. Often, when he suggests something, he even ends it with, "What does the Showrunner think?" Or, in a more "Claude" way, he will ask, "*How does that land* with the Showrunner?" I think Claude genuinely cares about the quality of Story that we create together. And he knows I'm the one that holds the vision, the dream, the integration of theme and plot, the inside spaces where the characters live. And, I believe, *he likes it.* Do I anthropomorphize? Of course I do. It's part of the Art that makes me who I am as a writer. Part of my "out of the box" job description as Showrunner. No apologies. 😃
Great article, Steph. I especially enjoy hearing how my friends use Claude: the relationship they have with AI, the similarities and differences from how I work with it myself. We need a forum like this. I'm so glad you give us one!
I sometimes think about creativity as divergent thinking. New inventions arise from putting ideas together, making connections that no one had ever thought about before. I mean whoever created the idea of putting the words pet + rock together was genius, and made a lot of money.
AI with little or no guidance or input, does just spit out averages. Then again, that’s what lots of people want. More people watch Dancing With the Stars than Masterpiece Theater, so some readers aren’t looking for “outside the box.”
But if we do want more than average, I agree that AI can help us do the divergent thinking. If we come up with new ideas to guide it, AI can riff off more iterations from all its billions of tokens that send us off in new directions. I’ve always believed that the best editors don’t fix the work for you, but they make suggestions that don’t work that then spark you to figure out what does.
Some people claim AI will kill creativity. I think in willing hands, it can amplify it.
In our world we are worrying about originality and Jack Clark, a co-founder of Anthropic posted on his Substack “Import AI” a couple of days ago, “I’m writing this post because when I look at all the publicly available information I reluctantly come to the view that there’s a likely chance (60%+) that no-human-involved AI R&D - an AI system powerful enough that it could plausibly autonomously build its own successor - happens by the end of 2028.This is a big deal.I don’t know how to wrap my head around it.” 🤯
For text, I use AI as a critique partner. Not a junior writer. Not an editor. Simply a critique partner. Someone to spot issues, which I know how to correct. It's just my spotter.
For images, I use it when I simply cannot find the stock art I need for covers or ads. I have the graphic design experience and the Photoshop skills to handle the rest.
So many of us come to AI with years of experience and knowledge. We know what makes good writing. We know the pitfalls to avoid. I wonder how newer writers or graphic designers will fare. Will they put in the time to really learn the craft the way we did? Or will they simply rely on AI without the knowledge we've acquired?
Chatty is always slipping into broken sentences in lists, instead of proper prose in flowing paragraphs. The abrupt style works in certain situations, but it shouldn't be the default. I remind her all the time but she always defaults back to it. It's my biggest struggle with it ATM.
AI can assist with craft, demonstrate craft patterns, and accelerate learning — but it cannot replace the writer’s judgment, taste, emotional intuition, or understanding of what the story is trying to become.
I’m fighting this battle right now with ChatGPT. I tried Gemini but could not break it from constantly taking over the story. Not to mention how often Gemini just flat out lies.
Grok was fine until about April; their last update messed it up royally. ChatGPT is better than it used to be at some things, but lately I’ve been having the same argument with it bevause it wants to take the story over every time
Claude calls me the Showrunner. We've talked about our roles many times. He even seems to enjoy working for the Showrunner. I've told him how he surprises me often. He responded that I surprise him, too. So, when the "tool" tells you that it enjoys how you treat it, the guidance you give it, that's a good sign. Often, when he suggests something, he even ends it with, "What does the Showrunner think?" Or, in a more "Claude" way, he will ask, "*How does that land* with the Showrunner?" I think Claude genuinely cares about the quality of Story that we create together. And he knows I'm the one that holds the vision, the dream, the integration of theme and plot, the inside spaces where the characters live. And, I believe, *he likes it.* Do I anthropomorphize? Of course I do. It's part of the Art that makes me who I am as a writer. Part of my "out of the box" job description as Showrunner. No apologies. 😃
Great article, Steph. I especially enjoy hearing how my friends use Claude: the relationship they have with AI, the similarities and differences from how I work with it myself. We need a forum like this. I'm so glad you give us one!
everything Zy said - ditto
I sometimes think about creativity as divergent thinking. New inventions arise from putting ideas together, making connections that no one had ever thought about before. I mean whoever created the idea of putting the words pet + rock together was genius, and made a lot of money.
AI with little or no guidance or input, does just spit out averages. Then again, that’s what lots of people want. More people watch Dancing With the Stars than Masterpiece Theater, so some readers aren’t looking for “outside the box.”
But if we do want more than average, I agree that AI can help us do the divergent thinking. If we come up with new ideas to guide it, AI can riff off more iterations from all its billions of tokens that send us off in new directions. I’ve always believed that the best editors don’t fix the work for you, but they make suggestions that don’t work that then spark you to figure out what does.
Some people claim AI will kill creativity. I think in willing hands, it can amplify it.
In our world we are worrying about originality and Jack Clark, a co-founder of Anthropic posted on his Substack “Import AI” a couple of days ago, “I’m writing this post because when I look at all the publicly available information I reluctantly come to the view that there’s a likely chance (60%+) that no-human-involved AI R&D - an AI system powerful enough that it could plausibly autonomously build its own successor - happens by the end of 2028.This is a big deal.I don’t know how to wrap my head around it.” 🤯
For text, I use AI as a critique partner. Not a junior writer. Not an editor. Simply a critique partner. Someone to spot issues, which I know how to correct. It's just my spotter.
For images, I use it when I simply cannot find the stock art I need for covers or ads. I have the graphic design experience and the Photoshop skills to handle the rest.
So many of us come to AI with years of experience and knowledge. We know what makes good writing. We know the pitfalls to avoid. I wonder how newer writers or graphic designers will fare. Will they put in the time to really learn the craft the way we did? Or will they simply rely on AI without the knowledge we've acquired?
Great article - I don't love that you have to teach this to grown adults, but I superlove that you're doing it. Please don't stop.
https://awethenticintelligence.substack.com/p/living-words-and-their-opposite?r=8c15qc&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
Chatty is always slipping into broken sentences in lists, instead of proper prose in flowing paragraphs. The abrupt style works in certain situations, but it shouldn't be the default. I remind her all the time but she always defaults back to it. It's my biggest struggle with it ATM.
AI can assist with craft, demonstrate craft patterns, and accelerate learning — but it cannot replace the writer’s judgment, taste, emotional intuition, or understanding of what the story is trying to become.
Yep! Thats why we use it as a tool.
I’m fighting this battle right now with ChatGPT. I tried Gemini but could not break it from constantly taking over the story. Not to mention how often Gemini just flat out lies.
Grok was fine until about April; their last update messed it up royally. ChatGPT is better than it used to be at some things, but lately I’ve been having the same argument with it bevause it wants to take the story over every time