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.
Reading the journal paper this article referenced, I was a little disappointed that there weren’t more variables accounted for regarding the participants and the texts. With the participants, factors I see commonly accounted for are levels of education, socioeconomic indicators (say income), or how many books the participants have read in the past month or something similar.
Regarding the text, some form of analysis to then account for or attempt to equalise the AI-generated texts so that they’re similar to the author-written ones would have been nice - like average sentence lengths or average syllables per word.
However, this is still a data point (and a scary one) that it can be very hard to distinguish AI-generated content from human-generated ones…
To be honest, this moment was always coming or is yet to come for anti-AI folks.
The real issue isn’t whether it’s good or bad. The reason it’s such a hot thing is because generally it’s good enough to get people interested. And that’s very unlikely to go away.
Too interested? Sure.
But machines that are better than people at something people value about themselves. That’s where we’re heading if we’re not there already.
Which unlocks a massive question: What kind of world do you want to live in and how much are you willing to do to maintain it? Just about everything else is no longer a given. Not our value or importance, not our position at the top of the food chain, not our democracy or wealth, or the continuous growth of capitalism, or even our continued existence.
We’re basically at the beginning of an AI apocalypse movie. You can’t presume that you know the ending. You have to figure out how you want it to end. And not just for you, but your children and grandchildren children. Cuz it’s all at stake now.
I think you’re taking the doomer narrative a bit too seriously, especially with that final paragraph. The prominent pushers of said narrative usually have something they want to sell, or a real-world issue to distract you from. Some (Yudkowsky) from their cults, some (Altman, Amodei) to enable monopoly or drive profits. Short stories do not an AI apocalypse make.
Sources need to be vetted and held to account when they are wrong or make unfalsifiable statements.
I don’t think it’s a doomer comment at all, I think the last paragraph is trying to tell you without saying the word “datacenter” to go look up the addresses of data centers.
It’s about the trend and the motives of those with power.
Ten years ago everyone was very surprised that an AI managed to beat the best human at Go, a board game. I don’t think anyone really saw that coming. There’s evidence that some with insight didn’t see it coming at all.
At that time, no one was talking about the current state that we’re in now. So what happens in 2036. And the next generation?
Unless you presume that the human mind is special and impossible to duplicate in important ways, I think there’s a clear set of possibilities here that need to be taken seriously. Sci-fi has been for decades, because they’re that obvious frankly. That the current AI is being over-sold and promised by its backers is basically meaningless. That an AI can write convincingly, even if only for a few pages, and couldn’t do so 5-10 years ago. That’s huge.
I was a little disappointed that there weren’t more variables accounted for regarding the participants
I think it’s even worse than that. quoting from the study’s abstract:
In Study 1, participants (1,682 adults recruited from Prolific)
…
In Studies 2 and 3, participants (905 adults recruited from Prolific)
hadn’t heard of Profilic before, they describe themselves as:
so the common theme is that 100% of the study participants have opted-in to this “help evaluate AI as a paid side-hustle” thing. that is going to introduce a huge selection bias that is definitely not representative of the population as a whole.
Oof, I didn’t even catch or look up the Prolific bit!
In this economy, I’m not going to sit down and do evaluation work for you to sell to another company unless you fucking compensate me for my time. Who is willing to help do this study for free?
Removed by mod
People are also way worse at distinguishing them than they think they are. And it’s the same story with images.
Look, man, I have been in writing groups and classes with people of all ages and skill levels. I have read some truly horrendous stories. Is the infinite word predictive machine going to write a better story than the worst, least skillful writer? Easily. Is it going to produce a better story than some of the more skillful writers? Absolutely not.
Worth noting also, I’m not saying someone who is noted for selling a lot of books, or even someone in an MFA program for writing. I am saying, LLMs are unlikely to produce a better work than me, and I am just some guy who is pretty skilled and practiced at writing. Maybe the one or two most skilled in a group of hobbyists who meet and share feedback and try to get better.
AI is always going to shoot for the absolute middle in terms of quality, and can definitionally produce nothing new or innovative.
This is like comparing landscape paintings to photographs of the same landscape from the same perspective and asking random people to judge which one they think is better. This is an insane comparison.
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:
Having read the compared stories now, I have to say I’m deeply offended at the results. The AI stories are quicker to read because they are chains of cliches which state and restate the theme of the story (as stated in the prompt) outright instead of demonstrating it through the charged and personal perspectives of the characters. The LLM generated text is meaningless word sausage formatted to be easier to read for people who don’t read much. I have never read something more cynical, and I have read plenty of trash by authors who hate their audience and consider them all to be idiots.
You nailed it. For me, the human-written stories were interesting because it’s not immediately apparent where they’re going. The prose evokes images and emotion, and I want to put the pieces together to identify the theme.
The AI stories blurt out the theme almost immediately, and then my attention wanes because there’s nothing left in the text except for a base retelling of events.
Most people are dumb and are functionally illiterate. Of course the incredibly dumbed down text will appeal to them more.
Too many people love a piece of media that makes them feel smart without effort. They don’t want to think, they want to believe they already know anything important already and they love to have that reinforced. They read something written by an adult human and their thinky meat gets all hurty, but if they read the dumbed down, stripped bare version that spoon-feeds the “answers” to them, they get all tingly in their bits.
I like how story pair #1’s AI just took the prompt and basically kept repeating “yeah, them’s fish” over and over without any attempt at significance
I love when someone has already answered my question in the comments.
I would love to know the prompts and parameters of their short stories, but no. I generate stories all the time as a sort of self-roleplay since I don’t have a tabletop troupe to play with. The stories are terrible and get worse with length. I only tolerate it because roleplaying already has a lot of bad writing and retconning, and I’m not looking for depth or a coherent plot.
People down voting a study. Hilarious.
Feels over reals. We’re fucking doomed.
A study isn’t valid simply because it’s a study, and headlines telling you what to think of their results without at least a vague sense of the numbers are propagandistic by nature.
Rated better quality? By who and how much? Pretty basic details to include.
From what the guardian reports on the details, this study looks like garbage. From the posted stories, the results are definitely garbage, and whether that’s the fault of the researcher or humanity will need a closer inspection.
I’ll tell you right now, coming to such a broad conclusion because some American sophomore students liked three AI stories better than three selected human written stories sounds pretty fucking stupid.
Are you kidding me? This was a University Prof, doing a proper study, published in the Cambridge University Press, and involving 1700 participants.
Did you not even bother to look up the source before jumping down my throat?
This is even further evidence of why we’re fucking doomed. Your feelings about this headline override any reasonability you have to the point where you won’t even look at the source.
deleted by creator
At first I read the title as “AI-generated stores” and was like “well, yeah, Amazon’s design sucks, of course they’re better rated!”
I don’t feel that this matters much.
As something that uses statistics to generate its output, AI creates stuff that’s average, and so appealing to the masses. It’s not much different from mediocre books churned out by publishers chasing sales instead of art.
It’s the McDonald’s of art. Is it ok? Sure. Will it change your life? No fucking way.
