[kleiba]

It shouldn't matter which tools were used to write a story, just whether it's a good story or not.

However, how would any publisher assess such a flood of submissions? Use AI to pre-classify stories as good/mediocre/bad?

[Retric]

If the AI stories where good enough they could just stop after finding a few good submissions, but they are all terrible.

Or as they say “While rejecting and banning these submissions has been simple, it’s growing at a rate that will necessitate changes.”

[forgetfreeman]

This is incorrect. The absurd extreme of what you are advocating is full automation at which point people do literally nothing but consume content.

[narrator]

There's already too much entertainment. It's a completely oversaturated market.

[TheCoelacanth]

That sounds tiring. Can't I get an AI to consume the content for me?

[JohnFen]

It depends on what you want.

Personally, what I find valuable about art is that it's communication from another human, so it matters to me. I'd prefer the human-written story even if the machine-written one is technically better.

Sort of like how I prefer handcrafted pottery over machine-made pottery, or handcrafted furniture over machine-made furniture even if the machine ones are technically superior.

[LadyCailin]

Require a non-trivial but affordable deposit to review the submission. Refundable if an actual effort was made whether or not it is accepted. If I just spent the effort to actually write a story, I wouldn’t mind depositing $20 to get someone to review it, with full expectation that I get the money back.