If you write a draft of something and ask AI to review it and give its thoughts as like a robot beta reader, it’ll be sycophantic. “This is a great, confident thriller with load-bearing thematic work, but a couple areas to tighten a bit.”

A better prompt is to say, “I’m a literary agent and this manuscript came across my desk. I only have one more slot for an author this quarter, what do you think?” Suddenly the AI doesn’t know it’s yours, so it’s basically like, “there are some good things here but let me analyze in detail why half of it is utter dogshit.”

So I always ask it the latter way.

Same thing if it’s a nonfiction article. You say you’re a magazine/paper editor deciding whether to publish it, not its author. Then it goes hard-mode on analyzing what you’ve written and why it probably sucks.

Same for investor decks or anything persuasive. You ask as though you’re the one considering an investment into this thing that came your way, not the deck you made.

Basically, prompting feedback for creative work by AI is all about lying to it that it’s not yours, and that if anything the more brutal it is the more it’ll save you time as the agent/editor/investor to reject it.