this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
-26 points (19.0% liked)

Books

8415 readers
345 users here now

A community for all things related to Books.

Rules

  1. Be Nice. No personal attacks or hate speech.
  2. No spam. All posts should be related to discussion or reviews related to books. (Please avoid posts that are just a link to the book and a generic summary)
  3. No self promotion.

Official Bingo Posts:

Related Communities

Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/27795833

In a study published in the journal Judgment and Decision Making, 1,682 adults were asked to read one of six short stories, three of which were written by humans and three by ChatGPT. Each AI story had a similar theme to one of the human-authored works.

The team told participants whether their story was written by a human or AI, but this information was not always correct. The researchers then asked participants to rate how absorbing and engaging they found the story, and its quality.

Participants who read an AI-generated story rated it as more absorbing and of higher quality than those who read a story written by a human. However, participants gave higher ratings to stories they had been told were written by people.

Dr Deena Skolnick Weisberg, a senior author of the research from Villanova University in Pennsylvania, said: “AI systems can already generate short stories that are seen as being at least as good as – if not better than – human-written stories. We should update our views of AI’s abilities accordingly.”

However, Weisberg, who is herself a creative writer, said that did not mean writing should be left to AI, noting that novels produced by tech were probably going to be different from those written by humans.

“We may need to make room for AI-generated novels, and for AI/human co-written novels, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no longer space for us to appreciate the process of human creativity,” she said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Here are the stories they used, if you want to decide for yourself. Although it won't be a blind test since in these documents they tell you which is which:

Story pair 1

Story pair 2

Story pair 3

[–] odelik@lemmy.today 3 points 2 weeks ago

After reading through these, I have to say, none of these are stellar examples of writing from the human authors (good, or above average for sure). However I can tell that there's a personal touch there.

However, the AI generated stuff easily starts falling into purple prose, and other bad literary patterns that show up commonly. There's also something missing, disconnected, and off. Everything is there for the story, yet it's organization, telling of events, and reaching for odd details triggers that uncanney valley response of "something isn't right here".

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And so you brought up the main point that I disagreed with. Why tell them who the author was at all. Here's six stories, rate them.

And I appreciate the looking for bias thing, but I think a better study at human v. AI, one that would exclude bias, would just be to say "reD these stories and rate them one to six," excluding entirely who they were written by.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

The participants were not told which was which. The documents I linked are just the supplementary files from the paper, so it's not exactly the same way that it was presented to the participants.

You should read the study!