Having your own words processed and restated can help you improve your thinking and your writing. That’s one reason why talking with someone about your ideas can help you clarify your thoughts. ChatGPT is certainly no replacement for a knowledgable friend or colleague, but can can definitely help you remix your writing so you can see it anew.

Here is some advice if you’re stuck writing a nearly-finished paper: Paste the whole thing into ChatGPT and ask ChatGPT questions like this.

– to summarise the whole paper for you
– to state the main argument (do you agree?)
– to write an abstract
– to write a conclusion
– to explain why this paper is important (for society? for the future? for the field?)
– to write an article in the style of Wired Magazine about the paper
– to write an interview with the author of the paper about its contents for the New York Times
– to write a hate piece about the paper for Fox News
– to write a series of tweets promoting the paper
– to write a reply to one of those tweets criticising the paper
– to write a Reddit post about the paper etc.
– to explain the paper as though to an 8 year old
– to write a peer review of the paper
– to write a cover letter to the editor of [whatever journal] explaining why the paper will be of interest to the journal and what its strengths are
– …..and what else can you think of?

Many if not most of the results will be silly or wrong, of course. But some will be interesting, or make you see something you maybe didn’t consider, or help you see what your main point really is (or isn’t). If it writes you an abstract or conclusion you actually disagree with or that focuses on something you hadn’t expected, reread the paper – maybe your real argument isn’t as clear as you hoped?

I’m not suggesting you copy and paste the text ChatGPT generates into your paper. I’m suggesting that you use it as a remix engine to see what else your paper might be, to respark your inspiration, and to make yourself laugh and enjoy yourself. That’ll make finishing to write the paper much more fun!

You’ll have to paste the text in a 1000 words at a time or so as there is a word limit for each “bit” of text it can process. Tell ChatGPT “This is part 1 of of a paper titled “TITLE OF PAPER”, and then “Here is part 2” and so on. 

After all this, revise your paper!


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

7 thoughts on “How to use ChatGPT to get past writer’s block

  1. Eleanor

    I’ve used ChatGPT as a sounding board for a project description, “reword this for clarity in academic voice”, was the prompt. It worked well to help me edit the short piece of about 200 words (when I was a bit blocked and bored tbh).

    I’m wary of giving ChatGPT or other similar systems more of my words, ie a nearly finished paper, even in chunks. Do you see any issues or pitfalls with this?

  2. […] er flere fordeler og ulemper med KI, og ifølge Jill Walker Rettberg så kan KI hjelpe mot skrivesperre. Noe som kan være et fantastisk hjelpemiddel for forfattere, […]

  3. […] Rettberg, Jill Walker (2023). How to use ChatGPT to get past writer’s block: https://jilltxt.net/how-to-use-chatgpt-to-get-past-writers-block/ […]

  4. […] Rettberg, Jill Walker (2023). How to use ChatGPT to get past writer’s block: https://jilltxt.net/how-to-use-chatgpt-to-get-past-writers-block/   […]

  5. […] Rettberg, Jill Walker (2023). How to use ChatGPT to get past writer’s block […]

  6. […] Rettberg, Jill Walker (2023). How to use ChatGPT to get past writer’s block: https://jilltxt.net/how-to-use-chatgpt-to-get-past-writers-block/ […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]