Hi! I started typing a review of the game "Doki Doki Literature Club", and it's console port (Doki Doki Literature Club Plus). When I asked the AI to generate more based off of ***"My favorite video game is "Doki Doki Literature Club", developed by Team Salvato and released in 2017 on Steam. 5 years later, Team Salvato released a console port (DDLC+), which also added 6 side stories and new tracks created exclusively for the port."*** When I checked what the AI had generated, I noticed a paragraph that popped out to me: ***The first story, "A Stroll Through the Park", followed Sayori and the protagonist as they took a walk through a beautiful park on a sunny day. As they walked, they talked about their hopes and dreams for the future, and it was clear that their bond was stronger than ever.*** Now, you might be thinking, *"Oh, this looks perfectly fine."*, but when you look at the [DDLC Wiki](https://doki-doki-literature-club.fandom.com/wiki/Side_Stories), you'll notice that it says *"The Side Stories are a story expansion included in Doki Doki Literature Club Plus!. Taking place in an alternate universe of Doki Doki Literature Club! where the Protagonist doesn't exist, it shows how the club was formed by Monika with the assumption that she never had her epiphany, which is referenced in the main campaign story. It has six side stories, each with two parts, and a short bonus story with only one part."* There is a way to stop inconsistancies like this from happening through, which could be put into a formula as shown below: **1.) Does the game exist? 1a) Yes: Check various (RELIABLE) sources to see what the game is about, the plot, the characters, etc. This will lower the chance that the AI will write something that is inconsistant with the item in question. 1b) No: Use whatever code you use now to write a review on the game. It doesn't matter what the review says, because the game doesn't really exist. 2.) Does the reveiw have any inconsistances (which would be determined by checking the reveiw with the sources used in Step 1)? 2a) Yes: Rewrite the reveiw, making sure to remove inconsistancies that might have been checked, then check it again. Repeat this as necessary until the text is as free of errors as possible. 2b) No: Let the user view the AI generated text, and keep generating different versions until there are 2 error-free versions. Discard all the rest.** This would ensure that the text is as error free as possible, while also allowing the AI to generate orginal ideas when needed.