r/WritingWithAI

Hi guys! I'm Samuel (Noam) and I’m a lurker in this sub for quite some time. 

In the last 12 months, I've been working on a project called WriteinaClick. My wife was trying to write her first book, but got completely lost across five different tools - and couldn't finish it. I used my 15 years in AI/software to build a tool that would help her.

AND, I think it might help some of you!

So what is WriteinaClick?

A single place for the whole book lifecycle. You draft in an Editor, and there's an AI co-author called Robin sitting next to you that has actual memory of your manuscript - your characters, your timeline, story and character bibles etc…

I’ve also added Reader Pulse while you’re still drafting, so you can see where a reader is likely to stay hooked or put the book down, chapter by chapter. And Publish when you’re ready to get the book out: export the file, open Reader, and share it with beta readers.

I made WriteinaClick so it doesn’t write the book for you. It helps you write and finish yours.

I built this tool hoping it could genuinely help writers, and I'd love for this community to be among the first to try it. I'm opening up 50 Premium accounts (6 months each) for early folks who want to dive in, and then 500 more spots (1 month each) as things roll out over the next few months.

Honestly, the main thing I'm hoping for is feedback. What works, what doesn't, what you'd want to see improved. Would really appreciate any thoughts if you give it a spin.

To claim it go to https://app.writeinaclick.com/join/writingwithai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=writingwithai_launch&utm_content=founder_post

The claim is auto-apply. No card, no trial that quietly bills you, no auto-renew trap - after 6 months it just reverts to the free tier unless you decide otherwise. And writing itself is free for solo authors anyway for everyone; Premium is the extra layer on top.

I'll be in the comments all day. Happy to answer anything, including the skeptical stuff - pricing, what data Robin sees, why you'd use this over other tools, or why you shouldn't.

Hello everyone, I'm a freelance journalist currently working on a story about the impact of AI in fandom spaces, particularly on fanfiction websites, both for writers and readers.

I'm really interested in getting some genuine opinions, both from anti and pro-AI users of these spaces. If you're interested in participating, you can fill out this form (https://forms.gle/Z5UzbU4qLvUJx35y6), which should take 2-5 minutes. Or, alternatively, if you are open to having an ordinary conversation and sharing some more of your thoughts, drop me a message, as I would love to hear from you.

Having loved this space since I was a spotty teenager, I am so passionate about these spaces and would be delighted to chat more or simply have some respondents from my form, if you have any time to spare.

Thank you all!

1. It keeps writing paragraphs after paragraphs of overly long sentences. I guess the goal is to add flavor to the writing, but the result is very clunky.

2. The uneccesary comparisons every other sentence. When it's not the structure I shared here, it's something like "he spoke with the confidence of a man who blah blah blah". It gets boring fast and the similes often make little to no sense.

I've already tried asking it to stop doing this but I pretty much got ignored.

I ran the full text of this NYTimes article on Lionel Messi through Pangram and it came back as 100% AI:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/16/opinion/messi-world-cup-argentina-final.html

Either the NYTimes is publishing AI generated text without disclosure, or Pangram’s detector has massively fucked this up.

*****
EDIT: because a lot of you are focused on the “AI detection is bullshit” angle—you’re missing the bigger point. It’s not “AI detection can’t be trusted” or “why would someone like Rowan Phillips use AI to write” it’s why does an established author get to be published in the NYTimes even when his writing is flagged as AI, but debut writers can have their entire careers trashed when their work is flagged? Either publishers trust Pangram, or they don’t. If there’s one rule for well known writers, and a totally different rule for unknown ones, that’s textbook double standard.
*****

Here’s the exact text I ran through Pangram 4.0:

———

By late Wednesday afternoon, the roads in Barcelona had begun to empty. I was still an hour from the place where I planned to watch the Argentina-England semifinal, checking the dashboard clock, afraid I would miss the beginning and more afraid that this beginning might be Lionel Messi’s last.

On the indoor, air-conditioned field in Atlanta, under a roof closed against the Georgia heat, Messi wasn’t hurrying. The semifinal began as a rock fight: churning legs, desperate tugs, lunging tackles, the ball repeatedly disappearing beneath the urgency of reaching it. England’s younger players pressed and collided and chased.

Inside all that motion, Messi walked.

At 39, Messi, one of the oldest players in the tournament, sprints less often than he once did and covers less ground. On Sunday, he will play what is almost certainly his final World Cup match. In past tournaments, Argentina has doubted his genius, blamed him for every failure. But he has, without doubt, transformed soccer; he changed not only what a player could do with the ball but also what a player could see before the ball arrived. He made patience an attacking act.

A match contains more than one clock. There’s the official one, bright and remorseless, and there’s the quieter time in which a defender tires, a midfielder loses half a yard, a passing lane remains open one second longer than it should. Messi moves slowly enough to watch that second clock: who follows him, who stops following, where the next space will be. The running belongs to the match everyone can see. Messi waits for the one concealed inside it.

Messi walks not because he’s left the game.

He walks in order to enter it.

He walked like that at 29. He walked like that at 19, too.

The mythology of young Messi was his speed: his low center of gravity, the ball so close to his feet that it appeared less controlled than persuaded, the sudden passage through spaces that didn’t seem to exist until he entered them. But even then his deeper skill wasn’t simply that he moved faster than the game. It was that he saw the game sooner than anyone else.

At Barcelona, the club where he became famous, his vision lived inside a structure. Teammates won the ball, offered passing angles, ran beyond him and pulled defenders away. When Messi received a pass, several possible futures were already attached to it. He seemed capable of seeing them all.

That structure often disappeared behind Messi’s brilliance. Give him the ball, people concluded, and organization became secondary. Barcelona treated Messi’s genius as part of a system. Argentina treated it as a substitute for one.

For years, Argentina made two related mistakes about him. It mistook his genius for a complete plan, and his reserve for indifference.
Messi, of course, wears the number 10. No Argentine who wears that number enters alone. Diego Maradona, small and left-footed, had worn the shirt as a public storm. His speech, rebellion, joy and pain were impossible to miss. By the time Messi inherited the number, Maradona had established a national language of greatness that Messi was expected to speak.

Messi left Argentina for Spain at the age of 13. Years later, when Argentina truly met him, much of his becoming had already happened on Barcelona’s team. Argentines recognized the familiar gift — the small, left-footed genius — but not the unfamiliar figure carrying it.

In South American soccer, “pecho frío” — literally “cold chest” — is the old verdict against a player thought lacking in temperament when the moment demands it. At Barcelona, Messi’s stillness could be understood as concentration. With Argentina, it was entered as evidence in the case against him.

Argentina asked him not only to play like Messi but also to suffer like Maradona: to demonstrate, in voice and face and gesture, that defeat wounded him.

From 2014 to 2016, Argentina lost three finals in three summers. Germany scored late in the World Cup final. Chile defeated Argentina on penalties in each of the next two Copa América finals. Messi converted his kick in the first shootout and missed in the second; teammates missed, too. But the cameras kept returning to him.
By that third defeat, Messi was no longer merely the greatest player on the losing side. He had become the explanation for why Argentina lost. His genius had become Argentina’s emergency service: Whatever the team failed to solve, he was expected to solve alone. Afterward, he said he was finished with the national team.

But he returned.

In 2018, Lionel Scaloni took over as coach and stopped asking Messi to be the beginning, middle and end of every attack. He assembled midfielders who could win the ball and carry it forward, forwards who could run beyond Messi and pull defenders away, defenders willing to step toward danger rather than retreat from it. Their work created choices. Messi’s genius remained exceptional; it was no longer the entire plan.

Scaloni also surrounded him with younger players who had grown up watching him. They ran for him, argued for him, sang with him. They didn’t ask him to prove his love of Argentina. They played for him, and for one another, as if it were already known.

The transformation became visible in the 2021 Copa América final against Brazil. That victory gave Argentina its first major trophy in 28 years and Messi his first with the senior national team. At the final whistle, he disappeared beneath his teammates’ bodies. He had carried Argentina through the tournament. Now they carried him.

The 2022 World Cup made Messi and Argentina’s new relationship a global affair. Against Mexico, with elimination suddenly possible, Messi scored the goal that seemed to steady Argentina’s tournament. Against the Netherlands, the quiet captain’s fury moved outward: He argued, shouted and celebrated with defiance. His teammates joined him.
He had not become Maradona. He had become himself.

By the time Messi lifted the 2022 World Cup trophy, Argentina had learned to read both his silence and his fury as his own ways of bearing its collective burden.

On Wednesday in Atlanta, 10 minutes into the second half, Anthony Gordon slipped behind Argentina’s defense to score. England led, 1-0. Thirty-five minutes remained. If the score held, Messi’s final World Cup would end there.

The Argentine crowd was singing a line from an old stadium song: “Por esta camiseta, ganar o morir” (“For this shirt, win or die). England was playing to win or go home. Argentina saw the more final deadline.

Scaloni began trading caution for attackers. England made the opposite bargain, adding defenders. Argentina exchanged safety for possibility. England exchanged possibility for time.

Messi walked between possibility and time. He has always walked. What changed was everyone around him. Argentina finally made the runs his vision required. Other players carried the match toward the moments only he could see.

In the 85th minute, Messi received the ball near the right edge of the penalty area. His teammate Enzo Fernández appeared in a strip of grass behind two English defenders. Messi passed. Fernández scored. England and Argentina drew even.

Seven minutes later, Messi crossed with his right foot — the one usually employed to return the ball to his left — to pass the ball to Lautaro Martínez at the far post. With a second goal, Argentina headed into another World Cup final.

Messi hadn’t outrun England. Argentina had organized the night so that he could outlast it.

The final will have its official clock, bright and remorseless. Messi will be watching the other one.

At 19, he seemed able to outrun the future. At 39, he has reached that future’s edge, with a team beside him.

He will walk. Argentina will run.

This may be the last time we see them like this.

Whatever happens this Sunday, that will be enough.

I am no lawyer, but I see a potential for class action lawsuits against AI companies and AI detec.tor companies. You will need to verify with a lawyer first if what I say makes any legal sense. Therefore it is not legal advice, just some ideas that I came to think about class action lawsuits agsinst those who label non AI work or hybrid work as AI.

Let us talk first about the flaw of statistical judgement...

Both humans and AI learn from the same body of literature, a vast library of human expression. A human develops their voice by absorbing patterns from the books they read and mimicking the styles they admire. An AI language model, through machine learning, develops its output by recognizing statistical patterns from the same corpus. The material on which both learn is identical. Yet, when a human produces a text, it is celebrated as a unique expression of thought. When a statistically similar text is generated by an AI, it is often dismissed as slop.

The issue is not the material used for learning, but the criteria by which we judge the output. Judging a text based on its "statistical fingerprint" rather than its content or merit is an intellectually lazy shortcut. This approach fails to account for the astonishing efficiency of biological learning.

Machines do not learn using the same processes that biological learning uses. If AI detec.tors pretend to be accurate they will need to use scientific principles to detect the difference.

Scientific studies confirm the brain's learning differs fundamentally from machine learning, using more efficient mechanisms like prospective configuration . However, current AI detec.tors do not use these neuroscience findings.

Instead, they rely on statistical text analysis. They look for surface-level patterns like low perplexity and burstiness, or use deep learning classifiers trained to spot these patterns . These detec.tors do not de.tect the internal biological learning process; they only analyze the final text's structure. This is why they are flawed and can be biased, especially against non-native English writers who produce text with lower lexical variety .

This creates a legal crisis of statistical detec.tion

The statistical prejudice against AI is institutionalized through flawed detec.tion tools, which have become the basis for a growing wave of litigation in the United States. The core of the problem is that these detec.tors are fundamentally unreliable, often displaying significant bias against writers whose language patterns differ from an unspoken "norm." This creates a perfect storm for class action lawsuits on several grounds.

So let us talk about class actions and potential charges that writers can press against Ai detec.tor companies.

The evidence for systematic harm is compelling. AI detec.tors frequently produce false positives, often targeting the most vulnerable. A study presented at ACL 2026 found that essays written by English-language learners were more likely to be classified as machine-generated . This aligns with earlier findings that detec.tors misclassify non-native English writing at a rate of over 60% .

Students are fighting back. A federal lawsuit against Yale University, brought by a non-native speaker falsely accused of cheating, includes charges of breach of contract, civil rights violations, and emotional distress . A separate case saw a court overturn a student's punishment for a "100% AI-generated" paper, with the judge calling the university's use of the dete.ction tool "unreasonable" . These are not isolated incidents.

Based on the evidence, a class action against AI dete.ction companies could assert the following charges:

1. Violation of Civil Rights / Discrimination: This would argue that these tools have a disparate impact on protected groups, including non-native English speakers, students with disabilities (as they often write in more structured patterns), and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, violating their right to equal protection and access to education .
2. Breach of Contract and Unfair Trade Practices: Students pay tuition in exchange for a fair and honest evaluation. Basing disciplinary decisions on a secret, unreliable algorithm that cannot explain its own decisions constitutes a breach of that implicit contract . Companies marketing these tools as reliable for institutional use while knowing their limitations could be liable for unfair and deceptive trade practices .
3. Defamation and Invasion of Privacy: A false accusation of academic dishonesty is a direct attack on a student's character and reputation . The very act of subjecting a student's work to such an invasive and flawed analysis without their full, informed consent could be considered an invasion of privacy, particularly when the algorithm is designed to profile their personal writing style .
4. Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: The consequences of a false accusation are severe: suspension, expulsion, threats of deportation, and years of emotional turmoil . The extreme stress and damage caused by relying on a known faulty "digital witch hunt" could form the basis of an emotional distress claim .

The legal landscape is shifting. The companies that sell these tools, and the institutions that rely on them as a substitute for due process, are generating an enormous amount of liability. A class action would seek to hold them accountable for the systematic, algorithm-driven injustice that is sabotaging the futures of countless students and professionals.

What about writers of literature who are falsely accused of using AI generated content?

1. Defamation: A writer falsely labeled as using AI suffers damage to their reputation, which can lead to lost book deals, subscribers, or job opportunities. A public accusation of using AI to generate writing is a false statement of fact that can be published and cause measurable professional harm .
2. Invasion of Privacy / Misappropriation of Identity: In a case against Grammarly, writers sued over an AI feature that used their names and identities without consent to sell AI-generated editing services, which violated privacy laws and the right of publicity .
3. Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: The consequences of a false accusation, including damage to reputation, loss of income, and public humiliation, can cause severe emotional distress, which may form a legal claim .
4. Unfair Trade Practices (FTC Act): Marketing AI detec.tors as highly accurate when they have known false-positive rates that harm writers could be considered a deceptive trade practice under consumer protection laws .
5. Breach of Contract: If a writer has a contract with a publisher or client that specifies termination or payment procedures, and the client uses a false detec.tion score to breach that contract, the writer could have a claim.

How about lawsuits against those who reject hybrid works?

• Discrimination Claims: False accusations of AI use can be challenged as unlawful discrimination, particularly when they rely on unreliable detec.tion tools. A strong case exists under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if a writer uses AI as an accessibility tool (e.g., for dyslexia, cognitive support, or autism) and is penalized for it. Similarly, AI detec.tors have documented biases against non-native English speakers and writers of color, potentially supporting claims under civil rights laws. The 2026 Giggle v Tickle case from Australia demonstrates that human-in-the-loop reviews are not a defense if the process itself is discriminatory. In that case, a company's use of AI plus a human review was found to be discriminatory because the human decision was based on a biased process.
• Defamation and Reputation Harm: If a publisher or platform publicly labels a writer's work as "AI-assisted" or "AI-generated" when it is not, and the writer suffers concrete harm such as lost book deals, subscribers, or job opportunities, that can be grounds for defamation. A false statement of fact that causes measurable harm is the core of a defamation claim.
• Breach of Contract and Unfair Trade Practices: When a writer has a contract with a publisher or client that specifies terms for publication or payment, and that contract is breached based on a false AI detec.tion score, the writer could have a claim. Additionally, if a platform or publication rejects work based on an AI detec.tion tool marketed as accurate when it is not, they could face claims under consumer protection or unfair trade practice laws. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been active in investigating misleading AI marketing claims.
• Procedural Fairness: In the context of contests or prizes, the failure to provide a writer with an opportunity to respond to an AI allegation before rejecting their work could constitute a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness. This is particularly relevant when the rejection has significant consequences for the writer's career or reputation.

What do you think about these charges to be pressed against those who use Ai detect.ors or discriminate against hybrid AI work? Any opinions?

Hey!
Just shipped my latestindie app. AI writing assistant with specialty packs.

Universal app (one purchase = all 3 platforms):
• 15 instant actions
• 12 specialty packs
• Works in any app via Share Sheet
• BYOK option for privacy

3-day free trial.

Happy to answer questions about the Mac experience specifically — built with SwiftUI for all platforms.

https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/what-said/id6769452050

Hi everyone!

I'm excited to announce that we're running another writing contest, this time with a slightly longer submission window. If you've been thinking of starting your story, this is the time!

PRIZE

• $1,000 USD to one grand prize winner
• The top 10 finalists will receive personalized feedback on their submissions and $100 Markup credits on Inkshift.

DETAILS

• Word Count: Short stories between 1,000 - 10,000 words
• Writing Method: Same as last time, you can use as much or as little AI as you want. We're judging on story quality. Your entire story can be generated, and you can use any AI tool you want to create it.
• Content: Sci-fi, fantasy, literary, horror, romance, etc. But must be prose, not screenplays. And no NSFW or fanfiction submissions, sorry!
• Eligibility: Free to enter. Open worldwide to anyone 18+ (with a couple restrictions you can find on the website)
• Submission Period: September 1st through October 31st, 11:59 PM PT

HOW JUDGING WORKS

We're using a two-stage process. In the first round, submissions will be scored using the Inkshift platform to identify the top 10 finalists based on storytelling quality, originality, character development, and prose quality.

Final Round: We're fortunate to have Heli Huang (aka u/Afgad), one of the r/WritingWithAI mods, return to select the winner! Thank you Heli, we really appreciate it!

ABOUT INKSHIFT

For those who don't know, Inkshift is a story analysis tool for fiction writers.

We got some great feedback and early testing from users on this sub last summer, so thanks for all the continued support. In addition to the critiques, revision plans, and inline markup, we're launching new features soon like copyediting and line editing! You can get a free critique on up to 10k words, so if you want some feedback before submitting to the contest, feel free to use it.

HOW TO ENTER

• The submission form will open at inkshift.io/contest on September 1st
• I'll post a reminder before then

QUESTIONS

Drop them in the comments or email hello@inkshift.io

Good luck!

P.S. Sneaky second shoutout to u/Afgad for all the help!