zlacker

>>flornt+(OP)
AI prose is mediocre right now. Too verbose, indirect constructions, passive, etc. That being said, it's actually a great editor and can pick out all those issues consistently.

My workflow right now is to use AI for rough draft and developmental editing stages, then switch AI from changing files to leaving comments on files suggesting I change something. It is slower than letting it line/copyedit itself, but models derp up too much so letting them handle edits at this stage tends to be 2 steps forward 2 steps back.

>>Curiou+r61
I've always used AI as an editor, which is to say I give it the my efforts and ask it to highlight mistakes. They invariably find a few. They occasionally miss a few too, so they aren't particularly reliable editors.

They aren't reliable at anything I guess, but for English I have nothing else, and they are better than nothing. I do wish they would use a more effective way of highlighting their suggested changes, such as italics for new text and strikeout for deleted text.

Unless you are paid by the word, I struggling to think of why you would use an AI to create new text. The facts will be wrong, the tone won't be yours. "If I had more time, this would be shorter" is a truism here - AI can spit out an enormous amount of text in a very short time, text could be cut down to a fraction of the size with a bit of effort.