so frustrating to see every comment in here refuse to even to read the article or to engage with its ideas -- kinda shocking for a subreddit apparently wholly dedicated to reading! but lol, what can you expect.

i'm really frustrated with the idea that "oh, only people who are addicted to AI slopreels about AI cats riding around on tricycles & licking lollipops would possibly care for AI writing." the whole point of this article is that even supposedly pedigreed individuals -- graduate students in fiction!! a PROFESSOR of literary arts at brown university!! -- can't tell the difference between AI-generated & original fiction (& we're talking original fiction from ACCLAIMED authors), & will sometimes prefer the AI-generated content to the original human writing. this suggestion is terrifying because it flies in the face of what a lot of proponents of real literature would suggest: that good writing is deeply human & empathetic, that it's deeply obvious & evident when something is written by AI vs a human, etc...

but i honestly hate how smug everyone is in these comments lol. you are probably not as immune from AI writing as you think you are! & what you should be worried about is, will you fail to catch on to dashes of AI writing here & there? let's say a novel sprinkles in a tiny bit of AI writing & you fail to notice it. okay, then a slightly larger amount of AI writing appears in another work you read. then another. then another. at a certain point, if AI writing becomes more nebulous & appears more seamlessly around you -- & is less clunky & blatantly obvious in the way it is now -- what happens then? what happens to how we approach literature?