[keiferski]

I think if you compared the AI stories to works by “top” authors, the results wouldn’t really be as close. No one is confusing a story by Kafka or Conrad with a ChatGPT one.

Because unfortunately, one reason why readers can’t tell the difference between the AI and human authors is because they don’t have much exposure to the greats. The average person reads something like 2 books a year, and they probably aren't reading Nabokov.

[vunderba]

My personal litmus test that works fairly effectively with these AI generated stories is this - if someone asked you "What was the story about?" - could you reply with anything more substantial than the prompt that was given to generate the story to begin with?

Have a read through the 10 dragon stories where the prompt was "Meeting a dragon" and you'll see what I mean.

https://mark---lawrence.blogspot.com/2023/09/so-is-ai-writin...

[mariusor]

With all due respect but at least Robin Hobb, is one of the greats in her domain.

[bubblyworld]

That's probably true, but as the author points out, it's still interesting to see where the boundary is at the moment. It's a lot further along than people typically argue imo.

[keiferski]

I don’t really find it that surprising - if you write generic low-quality stories, it’s difficult to differentiate your work from an AI writing generic low-quality stories. People have been selling slop stories on Amazon for a long time before AI tools, so describing them as professional authors is not exactly damning here.

[bubblyworld]

Okay, but if your argument is that people couldn't differentiate them because these particular authors also write "slop" then you should just lead with that. I think many people would reasonably disagree with you.