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.
I didn’t read the article, but from the summary, it’s not obvious which humans wrote the stories. Famously, the ability of humans for writing is not the same for everyone. The average person writes like shit. The average writer writes kind of ok. The top few percentile of writers write really well, and the rest of humans like to read what those writers write. So if in the study, they asked a 6 year old, a plumber, and an accountant for a story, I completely understand that ai rated better. But even then, I would rather read 10 bad stories by random people than 10 passable-appearing ai stories.
From the study. They go on to list out all the stories, where they were published, when, the author, and the prompt they used for the AI equivalent. (It was a lot to copy here, though, so I didn't.)
Part of the study is that you probably wouldn't be able to tell, and that if you were told that a story was written by AI, and you are biased against AI, you'd rate that story as worse, even if it were written by a human.