I haven't used any AI for simple proofreading before. Today, I updated to the latest Mac OS (15.1). Its most prominent feature is its integrated AI tools.
I've been going through my works with its proofreading tool, and I find it fantastic. Missing commas, missing dashes, missing quote-marks, misspellings, and wrong tense for verbs, etc.
It caught so many, and it was right on every change. Fantastic!
I've been testing it for some time (via the beta program) and I agree it's very useful.
That said, it's not useful enough for me, as it cannot be customized to accept individual style. For example, I always use '12:04pm' as my standard time format, and it insists on correcting it to '12:04p.m.'.
Hopefully, they'll add the ability to customize it or create some kind of style guide, which would make it MUCH more useful and would allow me to stop paying for my customizable proofreading tools.
For example, I always use '12:04pm' as my standard time format, and it insists on correcting it to '12:04p.m.'.
Does it actually correct it or does it suggest a correction? If the latter, all you have to do is ignore the suggestion. If it actually makes the change, I don't think I would use it. I like to be in control (have final say).
I'm on OS 14.6.1 But when I update to 15.1, how do I use the proofreader? Where is it?
Does it actually correct it or does it suggest a correction? If the latter, all you have to do is ignore the suggestion. If it actually makes the change, I don't think I would use it.
I like to be in control (have final say).
It depends on the app. In TextEdit, it makes changes and shows them to you as red underlines and you can revert them.
In Pages, it gives you a revised version you can either paste over your current text or copy (but doesn't identify the changes).
This is clearly a 'revision 0.1' version. It'll improve and Sherlock most other proofreading apps on Mac.
I'm on OS 14.6.1 But when I update to 15.1, how do I use the proofreader? Where is it?
Under 'Edit/Writing Tools' for any application that supports it (I've tried TextEdit and Pages). The menu does not show up in Word or BBEdit, for example.
In Pages, it gives you a revised version you can either paste over your current text or copy (but doesn't identify the changes).
This is clearly a 'revision 0.1' version. It'll improve and Sherlock most other proofreading apps on Mac.
It does have the feel of an 0.1 release (maybe 0.2 – sort of like a Microsoft 2.1).
I was really hoping it would flag the individual changes use change tracking, but it just replaces all of the text.
I also tried the Make Professional option, just for shits and giggles. It did a good job of matching the meaning of my text, but the verbiage was very stilted. The Friendly version didn't change much of my original text.
I believe this is part of their AI push, which means you'll probably need a Mac with at least an M1 chip (i.e. Apple silicon) to use it.
but it just replaces all of the text
That's a dead-on-arrival for me. Especially in fiction where I intentionally break rules.
And if it's by app, since I use Word it's not even an option for me.
And if it's by app, since I use Word it's not even an option for me.
It's not an app, it's a MacOS service. As noted by another poster, the writing tools appear with a right click (or in the menu as I noted).
Once again, on MS Word, just select the 'track changes' in the "Review" tab and then it will flag each one, so you can then accept, reject or modify each one individually. That's how I typically review my editors' edits, as I often have to revise the suggestions to fit the context (i.e. put it into the particular character's voice).
I've long used the "editing" pulldown tab to search for any outstanding typos or potential issues, yet with that feature, you get more false negatives than you do positive typos, so it's mostly a complete waste of time and long overdue for an update.
The menu does not show up in Word or BBEdit, for example.
In BBEdit, right-clicking/control-clicking a selection displays the 'Writing Tools' menu, which works.
I've been using 'Copy' after invoking the 'Proofread' option, creating a new window, pasting, and diffing to see changes. I've accepted all the changes it made so far.
I've been using 'Copy' after invoking the 'Proofread' option, creating a new window, pasting, and diffing to see changes. I've accepted all the changes it made so far.
Thanks for the tip! I should have thought to try that.
I cannot accept many of the changes it proposes because of style choices, and it's not configurable.
The fact that it doesn't work 'in-line' the way my paid writing tools do is seriously problematic, because it would slow my workflow. Yes, BBDiff is great, but not nearly as efficient as in-line checking or a window which displays all proposed changes and allows accepting or declining them.
As I said, this is a 0.1 release, and I'm sure it'll get better.
If you think about it, 12:04 p.m. is correct as it stands for post meridian. Meridian being noon when the sun is at its meridian position. I also agree with Switch Blayde's comment to you. I use Grammarly to help point out my mistakes, it works well with MS Word. It underlines each one then displays the "suggested" correction. I like to be in control of such things as well. Just be aware that Grammarly is not perfect. Neither is chatGPT. I haven't tried Microsoft's Copilot yet, so I don't know how accurate it is.
If you think about it, 12:04 p.m. is correct as it stands for post meridian
I can't find a single clock that shows the periods/full stops. Every digital clock I have or my friends have simply show 'am' and 'pm' with no punctuation. So to say that 'p.m.' is 'correct' is, at best opinion, and I've given counterexamples of common use (which is the only true judge of what is acceptable or not).
We don't write N.A.T.O or I.B.M. in general usage, and in the UK, Mr and Mrs are considered proper. PhD is also used with regularity, rather than Ph.D.
To conclude, 'am' and 'pm' are perfectly acceptable and correct, and conform to the trend of dropping hyphens, periods, and diacritical marks etc (consider we went from coöperate to co-operate to cooperate).
I write times as 1:23am or 2:19pm so there is no confusion. :-) Or I use a 24-hour clock, when appropriate (e.g. giving European train schedules in my stories)
I write times as 1:23am or 2:19pm
I just read an article online. This is how they had the time:
Around 8:30 p.m., Levin's sister
Per the Chicago Manual of Style (one of my preferred sources, though hardly required):
There are six ways to write the abbreviations for ante meridiem (before noon) and post meridiem (after noon):
All caps with periods: 10 A.M., 10 P.M.
All caps without periods: 10 AM, 10 PM
Small caps with periods: 10 A.M., 10 P.M.
Small caps without periods: 10 AM, 10 PM
Lowercase with periods: 10 a.m., 10 p.m.
Lowercase without periods: 10 am, 10 pm
Each of these—including "am" and "pm"—is a legitimate choice.
(link)
The text later says that their preferred format is 'a.m.' and 'p.m.' It also slightly deprecates 'A.M.' and 'P.M.' (CMOS generally omits periods between capital letters in acronyms).
But there's a wide range of 'approved' options.
From another source (somewhat less definitive), CMOS also requires the space between the number and whichever abbreviation is chosen.
I can't see any reasonable likelihood of confusion in e.g. '1am', though, so it would fall back to general advice: set a style for yourself, then maintain it. CMOS is good advice, but unless your job requires it, anyone is free to do as they wish. And it's certainly not the be-all and and-all for fiction writing, though it's often useful there.
On the other hand, if the publisher of the article is an organization which mandates CMOS, '8:30 p.m.' is the CMOS-preferred style, so that's what you would expect.
It's all opinion, anyway. There is no formal authority for English.
So long as you are consistent and understandable, do it however you like.
It's all opinion, anyway.
By recommending six styles, CMOS definitely dodged the issue.
AJ
I'm not sure if I would call that a dodge. They do exclude some constructions (lack of a space, for instance). But, if there are a bunch of ways that are acceptable to write a thing, saying so isn't a 'dodge', it's merely acknowledging reality. They give a preferred form but do not bar other forms. It would be worse for them to force one style for no good reason other than to have made a decision to do so.
Absolutely, and that's what I was trying to say in my second-to-last paragraph. It's all opinion; just be consistent and understandable.
Unless your job forces an authority. Then there's a formal authority for you, in that context.
Be careful when using AIs. I use chatGPT to help with creating outlines for my story ideas. Sometimes I hit a wall and use GPT to help create a scene I'm having trouble with as long as it doesn't trigger the content filter. One of my stories was rejected by Literotica citing AI use. They even condemned the use of AIs as proofreaders. Even though I edited the scene created by the AI to fit the story it was still flagged and rejected. Fortunately, none of the stories proofread by Grammarly were flagged. Apparently, SOL doesn't check or care because the story rejected by Literotica was posted on SOL. I would never post a story entirely created by an AI but I don't mind assistance ever now and then.
One of my stories was rejected by Literotica citing AI use. They even condemned the use of AIs as proofreaders.
How would they know?
How would they know?
They use AI to detect the use of AI text.
I personally don't care about the use of AI because of the site's scoring system manages to show AI-generated stories, as they are not fun to read and none of them score well yet.
Hmm, I've been playing around with a site that has an AI explicitly set up and trained for story writing. It isn't set up to be used as a chat bot and it has tools for defining characters and other things that you don't get with a chat bot.
Maybe I'll post something under a separate pseudonym as an experiment.
They use AI to detect the use of AI text.
Which amuses me, because AIs are notoriously bad at detecting AI text (even according to the AI developers themselves). They often report things as AI-generated that are not and vice versa.
One of the UK's top intelligence experts predicted that the primary use of AI will be fighting off malicious attacks by other AIs.
AJ
Which is why I still use editors, NN and Stephen edit my work after I've run it through AI. For the most part I tend to use Grok. At least until they censor it. Stephen then clears out all of the uncessary crap and we have a story. I personally have no issue with people using AI to write, if like me they are not very good writers, this helps, especially when inserting big words where they make sense..
I use ChatGPT for editing the last two chapters, one of which I just published. I told it not to change any dialogue unless the wording needs tightened or is confusing, but gave it free reign with actions beats, to change where it can improve on mine or add where I left them out but it thinks it could use them. When I read the edited version, it seems barely different than the original even if "polished" as it's in my voice, reads well and nothing is missing.
Here's an example of ChatGPT's editing under my instructions.
Original:
We stood in the middle of the cemetery on a hilltop in western Pennsylvania, the church acrossed the road, a hundred yards to our right. The sun glaring in my eyes, I stared at the tombstone.
Edited:
We stood in the middle of the cemetery, a hilltop in western Pennsylvania. The church loomed across the road, a hundred yards to our right. The sun blazed in my eyes as I stared down at the tombstone.
Final:
We stood in the middle of the cemetery, on a hilltop in western Pennsylvania. The church loomed across the road, a hundred yards to our right. The sun glared in my eyes as I stared at the tombstone.
'Loom (verb) appear as a vague form.'
Since the sun is 'glaring', do the 'we' have impaired vision?
On my planet, gravity drags stuff down. So lugging heavy stone to the top of a hill to build a church wouldn't be sensible. And since hilltops have a lower depth of soil, putting a graveyard there wouldn't be sensible either because in would be harder to dig graves.
:-)
AJ
Sensible or not, that's the common practice in at least some parts of the world.
Churches are often built on hilltop, for the aesthetic impact, to appear more imposing and to be more noticeable (advertising had always been important for those types of scam). Further, there's certain tendency to build churches replacing earlier places of worship or other importance, and those have oftentimes been on hilltops for various, including similar reasons.
Then, old graveyards is often directly adjacent to a place of worship (if not The place of worship on itself). Finally, referring to my local specifics, graveyards are upon hills (sandy morens) because those are oftentimes the only places where you can dig a five feet deep hole without it filling in with water.
After the last Ice Age, when Britain became habitable again, people initially settled in the valleys because of the availability of water and the more fertile soil. The most significant churches were built where the people lived.
There are churches on hilltops. There are two quite close to where I live. Neither looks particularly church-like (no stonemasonry, no steeple, no bells). Neither has a graveyard.
As to what US churchly customs are regarding things like location, building material, bells etc I have little clue. But then I did indicate my post wasn't serious.
AJ
As to what US churchly customs are regarding things like location, building material, bells etc I have little clue. But then I did indicate my post wasn't serious.
Outside of the big cathedrals in major cities or giant non-denominational churches, most churches in the US would be some form of wood construction, possibly wood frame with a brick facade. And a church built with masonry would be brick or in the modern era, probably concrete block.
As most anyone I too talk about my local experiences here in Latvia. Our landscape is predominantly flat with few rolling hills where almost any chance to look over the forest without climbing a structure bestow a landmark of a "mountain" (to be fair, the language doesn't differentiate between hill/mountain at all).
Direct ancestors of modern Latvians immigrated to the area no later than 7-9 century A.D. (when supposedly the ethnic warlike nobility arrived following the free peasants gradually settling in previously, possibly centuries before) slowly displacing and assimilating then indigenous finno-ugric tribes. Who exactly buried their VIPs in smalish artificial sand kurgans in that timeframe is often up to debate, but such, ~5-10 feet high ~15-20 feet diameter cones decorated by a lose ring of 12+ granite boulders around it's base can still be occasionally found and are believed to contain burials (that such a meager structure can at all be notable talks to the flatness and featurelesness of the land too). Build from fine sand, in some cases seemingly transported for significant distances many have likely be lost to opportunistic sand mining for various purposes throughout centuries.
Peasant homesteads naturally choose relative high ground, and nobles even more so, in particular, for defensive purposes (any homestead can easily be fortified to an extent, the traditional building plan considered such necessity) and often significant amounts of earthworks was invested to upgrade the natural features, either by steepening existing slopes, occasionally allegedly employing a river to do so, digging ditches across high ground, or in some cases possibly, or allegedly, building whole artificial hills to house hill forts. Or just as likely, open-air places of worship.
Stemming from the above mentioned tradition of burial kurgans or not at all, but the folksongs describing burial traditions, beyond-the-life beliefs, ancestral cult elements, or matters as trivial as orphan grief, have a "burial sand-hill" as a recurring element more often than not, often epitomized as dry, soft, and warm. While some of the best known ancient burial groups (of relative commoners) are in fact in valleys between such artificially modified hills, many historical and active examples of countryside cemeteries are indeed upon relative high ground or slope.
Founded even shortly before Germanic crusaders invaded in the early thirteen century, one of the very first (catholic) churches constructed was a massive stone masonry structure above a (dolomite) cliff on a river bank (the remains of it now can be seen on a low island in the hydroelectric plant lake).
Further churches were built as nodes of oppression of the occupation regime, often against significant resistance of the local population. As multiple legends tell it, "what builders build during the day, devil razed during the night" until a virgin maiden was sacrificed by walling her in alive, her wailing heard for days and weeks and... forever since, but the nightly destruction of the building site allegedly stopped with that. While virtually every countryside churches (and even greater majority of older city churches) each have this legend associated with them, only a few have proven archeological evidence such human sacrifice indeed could have taken place during their construction.
And yes, while obviously wooden Christian churches did happen both back then (especially for the orthodox branch seeping in from the east even before Catholicism arrived from west with "sword and fire") and later, the archetypal church is a heavy stone structure here, typically surprisingly freezingly cold inside.
Not only they were often deliberately placed upon previous sacred mounds or in some cases hillfort mounds (either deemed too small for crusader's own masonry castles, and/or only cleared of a hillfort later, long after the competing crusader's nest had been constructed nearby), to add insult to injury sacred stones were collected and split for their construction. There's an aside is necessary. Due to geology of the region, all and any granite or other "hard" stone pieces are imported by the ice shield from the Scandinavia across the sea. Thus, the rare boulders above certain size were seen as sacred by the pre-christian godkeeping tradition more often than not, and used to place them in intricate large scale patterns in and around the sacred mounds or groves, and/or possibly as property border marks, with or without runes or other markings.
While an alleged religious prohibition to use stone in construction before then is dubious at best, there's no surviving masonry examples prior Germanic invasion, when it suddenly becomes commonplace seemingly overnight, in both civil, military and (Christian) sacred architecture, and even peasant barns and cellars are often stone-build from then onward (yet still virtually never homes, granaries or saunas, except city houses (a category of buildings virtually non-existent upon then either) or much later, late nineteenth, twentieth century, and then being brickwork or poured light concrete, never stone, except rarely as facing tiling above framework, and then soft stone).
. And since hilltops have a lower depth of soil, putting a graveyard there wouldn't be sensible either because in would be harder to dig graves.
Ah, but in an area prone to seasonal flooding, you either don't bury your dead, or by necessity you bury them on high ground. You don't want floods washing out the graves.
Or you do like they do in New Orleans. They bury their bodies above ground, in crypts. If you try to dig a hole, it just fills with water. Use google and look for cemeteries in New Orleans, LA.
https://www.nolatourguy.com/why-are-people-buried-above-ground-in-new-orleans/
Or you do like they do in New Orleans.
New Orleans isn't just a seasonal flooding issue, almost the whole city (except for the French Quarter) is below sea level. The natural water level is above ground for most of the city, they have to constantly pump water out, even in dry weather.
The little high ground they have it too valuable to use for cemeteries.
Or you do like they do in New Orleans. They bury their bodies above ground, in crypts.
That's where the expression, "wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole" comes from. Shoving the bodies in the tomb with a ten-foot pole. They packed them in.
On my planet, gravity drags stuff down. So lugging heavy stone to the top of a hill to build a church wouldn't be sensible. And since hilltops have a lower depth of soil, putting a graveyard there wouldn't be sensible either because in would be harder to dig graves.
"Oh Traveler" (Awnlee Jawking) from what Planet do You hail?"
Here on Earth, there are very many Churches, even stone walled churches built on Hills. Many of those churches have Graveyards on those hills too. Not a church graveyard, but one of the more famous Cemetaries in the USA is "Boot Hill" in Arizona.
Lowlands are prone to flooding, and there are laws and regulations about having graveyards on low ground.
There is usually at least six feet of soil on many, if not most, hills.
one of the more famous Cemetaries in the USA is "Boot Hill" in Arizona.
You got the one in Tombstone, AZ, but the first one was in Dodge City, KS.
Blazed might be the better word, as I don't like glaring and staring in the same sentence. I meant to use 'glare' meaning reflections, not necessarily direct light, but the strong sun could be bouncing off of cars windows, tombstones, etc.
Blazed might be the better word,
I was going to say that in a post but forgot. :( Yes, "blazed" is better.
I go back and forth on whether "on" is needed/better. It reads smoother without the "on," but does that mean the cometary is the hilltop? Not necessarily.
My version: When he got back, he walked into the corridor, taking off his top, flexing as he did. He went inside his flat and stripped off, warming down. His musclaes aching pleasantly as he went to the bathroom, switched on the shower and turned it as cold as he could.
Deepseek:
He returned to the flat slick with sweat, peeling off his top in one fluid motion, muscles rippling beneath sun-pinked skin. The mirror of his new physique still thrilled him—deltoids carving sharp angles, abs tensing as he flexed reflexively, a performance for no one and everyone. Inside the flat, he shed the rest, joggers pooling at his ankles as he stretched into a cooldown. Quadriceps hummed, lats sang; pain and pleasure blurred in the aftermath of exertion.
AI is getting better. It used to be dead simple to spot an AI generated image of a human immediately, just by counting fingers and toes. Now I have to really look with the latest images as they have sorted the excess toes and finger issue along with some of the other tell-tales.
Given the speed at which AI is learning (and correcting), it's really going to be an issue in a year or so. I'm really glad I'm not in school any-more as that shit on mobiles is going to be destructive as hell. And that includes its effect on course work and exam cheating.
I've just had a scan through some of the allegedly AI-written stories on SOL, checking for a couple of my pet peeves.
They mostly seem to get lie/lay correct. Only in one story did I find a couple of wrong instances. That's probably better than the typical SOL author.
On the grammar and punctuation of dialogue, the AI stories varied from pretty good to godawful. Presumably they were written by different AIs. If the AIs were trained on 'the internet', it's probably understandable: garbage in, garbage out.
AJ
On the grammar and punctuation of dialogue,
If the characters all speak with perfect grammar, it's not going to sound real. Maybe the AI did it intentionally.
My poor 'splainin again - I would have made a lousy teacher.
I wasn't complaining about the dialogue contents but how they were packaged up. AI(s) don't seem to recognise that the verb in a dialogue tag is transitive and requires an object (the dialogue), and like many novice writers separated some dialogue tags into a sentence fragments of their own.
AJ
Sort of a side question but given the topic of AI generation. What's the feeling about AI image generation for covers? I already did it for one story. I was rather surprised at how well it worked, and I suck at drawing.
I suppose at minimum I should indicate the cover was indeed AI created.
What's the feeling about AI image generation for covers?
I use AI for creating images for covers. No need to worry about copyright infringement if you do it.
No need to worry about copyright infringement if you do it.
Are you 100% certain there are no legal restrictions? I vaguely remember an article listing which AI's you could use freely to create illustrations for publication and which AIs had restrictions imposed by their terms and conditions of use.
AJ
So what? Even if so, at worst, one might want to check and/or clrear image metadata, have heard a few generations now spam there. In theory, it could be possible to insert invisible and persistent watermarks in the image itself, to identify the model, but I highly doubt anyone does it yet, or would soon bar a legal requirement. So, using an image against ToS of the AI "artist" you solicited it from is mostly a conscience thing.
to identify the model
Whoa! The people generated by AI are not real people. They are not models.
Whoa! The people generated by AI are not real people. They are not models.
I'm fairly sure that he's referring to the trained AI engine. It's referred to as a model.
Are you 100% certain
I'm never 100% certain. In this case, 99.9%.
I was talking about the image generated not being copyrighted. T&C violations are something else.
AI image generation for cover and pictures inside the stories is awesome!
Learning to craft image generation prompts is much easier than learning to draw and allows one to add flourish to their stories.
I suppose at minimum I should indicate the cover was indeed AI created.
I guess I'm a cheerleader for wanting authors to declare when their stories have been written with AI assistance but I have no issues with them using it to create cover or other illustrations, provided they comply with all legal restrictions.
AJ
Ditto, on the cover and illustrations.
For the story, it matters to me an enormous amount what the 'AI assistance' amounts to. Grammar checkers are arguably 'AI assistance'. An AI which reads the story, gives comments, but writes none of the itself is 'AI assistance'. And so on, and so forth.
If the author wrote all of the words, I don't need to know if an AI helped them do so by suggesting changes and corrections.
If an author used text from the AI in any significant part of the work, it might be reasonable to suggest flagging the story to that effect.
If an author largely had an AI generate the story from a story and character description, that really needs to be declared.
And so on, and so forth. Nuances aplenty.