[lelanthran]

I was surprised at the result, and even more surprised when I read that one of the authors who did the test got 4 out of 5 wrong, and rated 2 of the AI stories highly.

Looking at my notes, I got one wrong (story 5, dunno what the "name" was supposed to be, assumed that the "name" is something widely-known in culture that brings about the end times, a something that I didn't know about, and so marked it as Human because of a supposed reference to a shared cultural knowledge), and all the AI written stories I rated at either 1 or two points, with the lowest Human-written story getting 3 and the highest getting 5 (Story 1).

It makes me wonder if we are over-estimating the skill an author has when reading based on their demonstrated skill when writing.

IOW, according to my notes/performance, the AI stories were easy to spot and correlated with low scores anyway, while the author(s), who actually produced high-rated stuff for me, rated my low-rated stuff as high.