AI-Generated Stories Rival Human Writing, but Face Reader Skepticism

AI writes, but humans still book better

AFP - Authors are at the forefront of the debate on the uses of artificial intelligence (AI). Text generators based on this technology are capable of producing compelling narratives that can rival those written by humans in quality. But that doesn't necessarily mean that people are keen to read them. Researchers Hoaran Chu and Sixiao Liu conducted several experiments to find out how much people are interested in AI-generated works of fiction. They had several volunteers read two versions of the same story: one written by a human author, the other by ChatGPT. Participants were then asked to rate each of these stories according to their persuasive quality and their ability to transport the reader into the world of the narrative. "Transportation is a very familiar experience. It's the feeling of being so engrossed in the narrative you don't feel the sticky seats in the movie theatre anymore," explains Hoaran Chu in a news release. In a paper published in the Journal of Communication, the researchers explain that the volunteers found the stories generated by ChatGPT as compelling as those imagined by a human. But they didn't find them as captivating. To challenge the participants' assumptions, Hoaran Chu and Sixiao Liu switched how the stories were labelled, so that a story written by a human author was described as the work of ChatGPT, and vice versa. The findings show that readers are more critical of texts presented as being written by artificial intelligence, even if they actually aren't. "People don't like it when they think a story is written by AI, whether it was or not. AI is good at writing something that is consistent, logical and coherent. But it is still weaker at writing engaging stories than people are," says Hoaran Chu. This study suggests that people may be resistant to the use of AI in literature. Perhaps they consider the art to be too human to be generated by a machine. That said, some writers are using this technology in their literary creation. Japanese author Rie Kudan has admitted to using ChatGPT to write 5% of her futuristic novel Tokyo-to Dojo-to, for which she won the prestigious Akutagawa Prize. At the award ceremony, the novelist declared that artificial intelligence had enabled her to surpass her individual creative potential. In China, Shen Yang won second prize at a science fiction literary competition for Land Of Memories, a short story written in three hours with the help of ChatGPT. Around 60 prompts were needed to achieve the resulting text. So can we really all become authors thanks to AI? Perhaps. As the use of generative artificial intelligence becomes easier all the time, it will no longer be necessary to master the fundamentals of writing to produce a more or less accomplished work of fiction. But it's unlikely that AI will produce a masterpiece capable of winning the favour of readers on a significant scale.

Your next favorite story won't be written by AI - but it could be someday

Stories define people - they shape our relationships, cultures and societies. Unlike other skills replaced by technology, storytelling has remained uniquely human, setting people apart from machines. But now, even storytelling is being challenged. Artificial intelligence, powered by vast datasets, can generate stories that sometimes rival, or even surpass, those written by humans. Creative professionals have been among the first to feel the threat of AI. Last year, Hollywood screenwriters protested, demanding - and winning - protections against AI replacing their jobs. As university professors, we've seen student work that seems suspiciously AI-generated, which can be frustrating. Beyond the threat to livelihoods, AI's ability to craft compelling, humanlike stories also poses a societal risk: the spread of misinformation. Fake news, which once required significant effort, can now be produced with ease. This is especially concerning because decades of research have shown that people are often more influenced by stories than by explicit arguments and entreaties. We set out to study how well AI-written stories stack up against those by human storytellers. We found that AI storytelling is impressive, but professional writers needn't worry - at least not yet. The power of stories How do stories influence people? Their power often lies in transportation - the feeling of being transported to and fully immersed in an imagined world. You've likely experienced this while losing yourself in the wizarding world of Harry Potter or 19th-century English society in "Pride and Prejudice." This kind of immersion lets you experience new places and understand others' perspectives, often influencing how you view your own life afterward. When you're transported by a story, you not only learn by observing, but your skepticism is also suspended. You're so engrossed in the storyline that you let your guard down, allowing the story to influence you without triggering skepticism in it or the feeling of being manipulated. Given the power of stories, can AI tell a good one? This question matters not only to those in creative industries but to everyone. A good story can change lives, as evidenced by mythical and nationalist narratives that have influenced wars and peace. Studying whether AI can tell compelling stories also helps researchers like us understand what makes narratives effective. Unlike human writers, AI provides a controlled way to experiment with storytelling techniques. Head-to-head results In our experiments, we explored whether AI could tell compelling stories. We used descriptions from published studies to prompt ChatGPT to generate three narratives, then asked over 2,000 participants to read and rate their engagement with these stories. We labeled half as AI-written and half as human-written. Our results were mixed. In three experiments, participants found human-written stories to be generally more "transporting" than AI-generated ones, regardless of how the source was labeled. However, they were not more likely to raise questions about AI-generated stories. In multiple cases, they even challenged them less than human-written ones. The one clear finding was that labeling a story as AI-written made it less appealing to participants and led to more skepticism, no matter the actual author. Why is this the case? Linguistic analysis of the stories showed that AI-generated stories tended to have longer paragraphs and sentences, while human writers showed more stylistic diversity. AI writes coherently, with strong links between sentences and ideas, but human writers vary more, creating a richer experience. This also points to the possibility that prompting AI models to write in more diverse tones and styles may improve their storytelling. These findings provide an early look at AI's potential for storytelling. We also looked at research in storytelling, psychology and philosophy to understand what makes a good story. We believe four things make stories engaging: good writing, believability, creativity and lived experience. AI is great at writing fluently and making stories believable. But creativity and real-life experiences are where AI falls short. Creativity means coming up with new ideas, while AI is designed to predict the most likely outcome. And although AI can sound human, it lacks the real-life experiences that often make stories truly compelling. Closing in? It's too early to come to a definitive conclusion about whether AI can eventually be used for high-quality storytelling. AI is good at writing fluently and coherently, and its creativity may rival that of average writers. However, AI's strength lies in predictability. Its algorithms are designed to generate the most likely outcome based on data, which can make its stories appealing in a familiar way. This is similar to the concept of beauty in averageness, the documented preference people have for composite images that represent the average face of a population. This predictability, though limiting true creativity, can still resonate with audiences. For now, screenwriters and novelists aren't at risk of losing their jobs. AI can tell stories, but they aren't quite on par with the best human storytellers. Still, as AI continues to evolve, we may see more compelling stories generated by machines, which could pose serious challenges, especially when they're used to spread misinformation.

Your next favorite story won't be written by AI. But it could be someday

Stories define people -- they shape our relationships, cultures and societies. Unlike other skills replaced by technology, storytelling has remained uniquely human, setting people apart from machines. But now, even storytelling is being challenged. Artificial intelligence, powered by vast datasets, can generate stories that sometimes rival, or even surpass, those written by humans. Creative professionals have been among the first to feel the threat of AI. Last year, Hollywood screenwriters protested, demanding -- and winning -- protections against AI replacing their jobs. As university professors, we've seen student work that seems suspiciously AI-generated, which can be frustrating. Beyond the threat to livelihoods, AI's ability to craft compelling, humanlike stories also poses a societal risk: the spread of misinformation. Fake news, which once required significant effort, can now be produced with ease. This is especially concerning because decades of research have shown that people are often more influenced by stories than by explicit arguments and entreaties. We set out to study how well AI-written stories stack up against those by human storytellers. We found that AI storytelling is impressive, but professional writers needn't worry -- at least not yet. The power of stories How do stories influence people? Their power often lies in transportation -- the feeling of being transported to and fully immersed in an imagined world. You've likely experienced this while losing yourself in the wizarding world of Harry Potter or 19th-century English society in "Pride and Prejudice." This kind of immersion lets you experience new places and understand others' perspectives, often influencing how you view your own life afterward. When you're transported by a story, you not only learn by observing, but your skepticism is also suspended. You're so engrossed in the storyline that you let your guard down, allowing the story to influence you without triggering skepticism in it or the feeling of being manipulated. Given the power of stories, can AI tell a good one? This question matters not only to those in creative industries but to everyone. A good story can change lives, as evidenced by mythical and nationalist narratives that have influenced wars and peace. Studying whether AI can tell compelling stories also helps researchers like us understand what makes narratives effective. Unlike human writers, AI provides a controlled way to experiment with storytelling techniques. Head-to-head results In our experiments, we explored whether AI could tell compelling stories. We used descriptions from published studies to prompt ChatGPT to generate three narratives, then asked over 2,000 participants to read and rate their engagement with these stories. We labeled half as AI-written and half as human-written. Our results were mixed. In three experiments, participants found human-written stories to be generally more "transporting" than AI-generated ones, regardless of how the source was labeled. However, they were not more likely to raise questions about AI-generated stories. In multiple cases, they even challenged them less than human-written ones. The one clear finding was that labeling a story as AI-written made it less appealing to participants and led to more skepticism, no matter the actual author. Why is this the case? Linguistic analysis of the stories showed that AI-generated stories tended to have longer paragraphs and sentences, while human writers showed more stylistic diversity. AI writes coherently, with strong links between sentences and ideas, but human writers vary more, creating a richer experience. This also points to the possibility that prompting AI models to write in more diverse tones and styles may improve their storytelling. These findings provide an early look at AI's potential for storytelling. We also looked at research in storytelling, psychology and philosophy to understand what makes a good story. We believe four things make stories engaging: good writing, believability, creativity and lived experience. AI is great at writing fluently and making stories believable. But creativity and real-life experiences are where AI falls short. Creativity means coming up with new ideas, while AI is designed to predict the most likely outcome. And although AI can sound human, it lacks the real-life experiences that often make stories truly compelling. Closing in? It's too early to come to a definitive conclusion about whether AI can eventually be used for high-quality storytelling. AI is good at writing fluently and coherently, and its creativity may rival that of average writers. However, AI's strength lies in predictability. Its algorithms are designed to generate the most likely outcome based on data, which can make its stories appealing in a familiar way. This is similar to the concept of beauty in averageness, the documented preference people have for composite images that represent the average face of a population. This predictability, though limiting true creativity, can still resonate with audiences. For now, screenwriters and novelists aren't at risk of losing their jobs. AI can tell stories, but they aren't quite on par with the best human storytellers. Still, as AI continues to evolve, we may see more compelling stories generated by machines, which could pose serious challenges, especially when they're used to spread misinformation.

People hate stories they think were written by AI: Even if they were written by people

Stories written by the latest version of ChatGPT were nearly as good as those written by human authors, according to new research on the narrative skills of artificial intelligence. But when people were told a story was written by AI -- whether the true author was an algorithm or a person -- they rated the story poorly, a sign that people distrust and dislike AI-generated art. "People don't like when they think a story is written by AI, whether it was or not," said Haoran "Chris" Chu, Ph.D., a professor of public relations at the University of Florida and co-author of the new study. "AI is good at writing something that is consistent, logical and coherent. But it is still weaker at writing engaging stories than people are." The quality of AI stories could help people like public health workers create compelling narratives to reach people and encourage healthy behaviors, such as vaccination, said Chu, an expert in public health and science communication. Chu and his co-author, Sixiao Liu, Ph.D., of the University of Central Florida, published their findings Sept. 13 in the Journal of Communication. The researchers exposed people to two different versions of the same stories. One was written by a person and the other by ChatGPT. Survey participants then rated how engaged they were with the stories. To test how people's beliefs about AI influenced their ratings, Chu and Liu changed how the stories were labeled. Sometimes the AI story was correctly labeled as written by a computer. Other times people were told it was written by a human. The human-authored stories also had their labels swapped. The surveys focused on two key elements of narratives: counterarguing -- the experience of picking a story apart -- and transportation. These two story components work at odds with one another. "Transportation is a very familiar experience," Chu said. "It's the feeling of being so engrossed in the narrative you don't feel the sticky seats in the movie theater anymore. Because people are so engaged, they often lower their defenses to the persuasive content in the narrative and reduce their counterarguing." While people generally rated AI stories as just as persuasive as their human-authored counterparts, the computer-written stories were not as good as transporting people into the world of the narrative. "AI does not write like a master writer. That's probably good news for people like Hollywood screenwriters -- for now," Chu said.

Study: People dislike stories they think were written by AI... even if they were written by humans

Stories written by the latest version of ChatGPT were nearly as good as those written by human authors, according to new research on the narrative skills of artificial intelligence. But when people were told a story was written by AI -- whether the true author was an algorithm or a person -- they rated the story poorly, a sign that people distrust and dislike AI-generated art. "People don't like it when they think a story is written by AI, whether it was or not," said Haoran "Chris" Chu, Ph.D., a professor of public relations at the University of Florida and co-author of the new study. "AI is good at writing something that is consistent, logical and coherent. But it is still weaker at writing engaging stories than people are." The quality of AI stories could help people like public health workers create compelling narratives to reach people and encourage healthy behaviors, such as vaccination, said Chu, an expert in public health and science communication. Chu and his co-author, Sixiao Liu, Ph.D., of the University of Central Florida, published their findings Sept. 13 in the Journal of Communication. The researchers exposed people to two different versions of the same stories. One was written by a person and the other by ChatGPT. Survey participants then rated how engaged they were with the stories. To test how people's beliefs about AI influenced their ratings, Chu and Liu changed how the stories were labeled. Sometimes the AI story was correctly labeled as written by a computer. Other times people were told it was written by a human. The human-authored stories also had their labels swapped. The surveys focused on two key elements of narratives: counterarguing -- the experience of picking a story apart -- and transportation. These two story components work at odds with one another. "Transportation is a very familiar experience," Chu said. "It's the feeling of being so engrossed in the narrative you don't feel the sticky seats in the movie theater anymore. Because people are so engaged, they often lower their defenses to the persuasive content in the narrative and reduce their counterarguing." While people generally rated AI stories as just as persuasive as their human-authored counterparts, the computer-written stories were not as good as transporting people into the world of the narrative. "AI does not write like a master writer. That's probably good news for people like Hollywood screenwriters -- for now," Chu said.

AI-Written Stories Rated Lower Due to Bias, Not Quality - Neuroscience News

Summary: New research shows that stories generated by AI, such as ChatGPT, are almost as good as those written by humans. However, when people are told a story is AI-generated, they rate it more negatively, revealing a bias against AI-created content. Although AI stories are coherent and logical, they are less effective at immersing readers in the narrative compared to human writers. This study highlights how perceptions of AI influence the reception of its creative output, despite its potential in fields like public health communication. Stories written by the latest version of ChatGPT were nearly as good as those written by human authors, according to new research on the narrative skills of artificial intelligence. But when people were told a story was written by AI -- whether the true author was an algorithm or a person -- they rated the story poorly, a sign that people distrust and dislike AI-generated art. "People don't like when they think a story is written by AI, whether it was or not," said Haoran "Chris" Chu, Ph.D., a professor of public relations at the University of Florida and co-author of the new study. "AI is good at writing something that is consistent, logical and coherent. But it is still weaker at writing engaging stories than people are." The quality of AI stories could help people like public health workers create compelling narratives to reach people and encourage healthy behaviors, such as vaccination, said Chu, an expert in public health and science communication. Chu and his co-author, Sixiao Liu, Ph.D., of the University of Central Florida, published their findings Sept. 13 in the Journal of Communication. The researchers exposed people to two different versions of the same stories. One was written by a person and the other by ChatGPT. Survey participants then rated how engaged they were with the stories. To test how people's beliefs about AI influenced their ratings, Chu and Liu changed how the stories were labeled. Sometimes the AI story was correctly labeled as written by a computer. Other times people were told it was written by a human. The human-authored stories also had their labels swapped. The surveys focused on two key elements of narratives: counterarguing -- the experience of picking a story apart -- and transportation. These two story components work at odds with one another. "Transportation is a very familiar experience," Chu said. "It's the feeling of being so engrossed in the narrative you don't feel the sticky seats in the movie theater anymore. Because people are so engaged, they often lower their defenses to the persuasive content in the narrative and reduce their counterarguing." While people generally rated AI stories as just as persuasive as their human-authored counterparts, the computer-written stories were not as good as transporting people into the world of the narrative. "AI does not write like a master writer. That's probably good news for people like Hollywood screenwriters -- for now," Chu said. Can AI tell good stories? Narrative transportation and persuasion with ChatGPT Storytelling is a human universal. The ubiquity of stories and the rapid development in Artificial Intelligence (AI) pose important questions: can AI like ChatGPT tell engaging and persuasive stories? If so, what makes a narrative engaging and persuasive? Three pre-registered experiments comparing human-generated narratives from existing research and the ChatGPT-generated versions using descriptions and materials from these studies show that labeling AI as a narrative source led to lower transportation, higher counterarguing, and lower story-consistent beliefs. However, AI-generated narratives led to lower (Study 1 and 3) or similar levels (Study 2) of counterarguing than the human-generated version. Readers showed lower (Study 2) or similar levels of transportation (Study 1 and 3) when reading the AI- than the human-generated stories. We suggest the AI model's linguistic competence and logical coherence contribute to its stories' verisimilitude. However, AI's lack of lived experience and creativity may limit its storytelling ability.