Researcher says simpler writing by AI is easier to read and digest, but this does not mean human authors are obsolete

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.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      5·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.caEnglish
        21·
        2 days ago

        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.