Readers rated short stories generated by artificial intelligence higher than those written by humans when they believed the stories were authored by people, according to a study that adds to growing evidence that AI can match or exceed human performance in some creative tasks.
The research, published by Cambridge University Press and led by researchers at Villanova University in the United States, found that participants were generally unable to distinguish between AI-generated and human-written fiction.
The study tested whether people aged 18 to 81 could identify the author of fictional short stories written either by published authors or generated by ChatGPT. It also examined how participants rated the stories for quality and engagement.
“I’d say that public assumptions about AI’s capabilities are increasingly out of date,” said senior author Deena Weisberg of Villanova University’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
“We assume creative writing requires uniquely human qualities, such as emotional understanding and lived experience, which leads people to underestimate AI’s capabilities,” Weisberg added.
Researchers paired three fictional short stories written by published authors with three stories generated by ChatGPT.
In the first experiment, 1,682 participants read one story and were either correctly or incorrectly told it had been written by a human or by AI before rating its quality and how engaging they found it.
In two further experiments involving 424 and 481 participants respectively, readers received one human-written story and one AI-generated story without being told who wrote them, and were asked to identify the author.
“In our study, participants gave the highest ratings to stories that they had been told were written by humans but which were actually written by AI,” Weisberg said.
“I’d argue that this reveals a bias towards narratives written by real people.”
The researchers also found that participants who reported greater familiarity with AI tools were better at identifying AI-generated stories, while self-reported expertise in literature did not improve their ability to distinguish between human and AI authors.
Overall, AI-generated stories received higher ratings for quality.
“AI writing tends to be clearer, more direct and easier to process,” Weisberg said.
“By contrast, human-written stories are often more subtle and complex.”
The study comes as publishers, educators and technology companies debate the growing role of generative AI in creative industries, where its ability to produce human-like text has raised questions about authorship, originality and the future of creative work.
“Perhaps people generally prefer predictability, because difficult or subtle material requires more brain power.”
Stay ahead of the Stories shaping our world. Subscribe to Impact Newswire and join our
WhatsApp Channel for updates on global tech, business, and innovation—all in one place.
Dive deeper into the future with the Cause Effect 4.0 Podcast, where we explore the ideas, trends, and technologies driving the global AI conversation.
Got a story to share? Contact Us to reach a global audience with Impact Newswire.
Faustine Ngila is the AI Editor at Impact Newswire, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He is an award-winning journalist specializing in artificial intelligence, blockchain, and emerging technologies.
He previously worked as a global technology reporter at Quartz in New York and Digital Frontier in London, where he covered innovation, startups, and the global digital economy.
With years of experience reporting on cutting-edge technologies, Faustine focuses on AI developments, industry trends, and the impact of technology on society.
Discover more from Impact Newswire
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
