Don't be so defensive! 

Can it be that bad if readers believe there's another 'human subjectivity' behind it? Obviously, AI can write as beautifully as humans; we just can't get over it yet. Another debate in the ongoing saga over Haitian-born Canadian novelist Thélyson Orélien's prize winning novel, "It Was That or Die".  This time, we discuss Elisabeth Lévy's article on the saga for Causeur magazine.

Lévy: 

 GPT: 

 Me: 

I think we're at the stage now where humans are so frightened by AI that they really do want to know if the piece they reading was written by another member of their race or an AI impersonator ... but over time, once they get over these morbid ideas, they'll move to the second phase, which is, I don't care where it comes from as long as it's good. So for now, a book written by AI would belong on the specialist shelves ... in a few years it will join books by humans on the general shelves of your local library.

GPT:  

Me: LINK

GPT: LINK

Also, this point:

Me:

I think provenance is so important at the moment because people know AI can be just as good if not better than humans... they can't accept it. So you get this irritating narrative around the subjectivity of human experience. They are putting off the day when they have to acknowledge that AI agents are peer competitors. Those who have already made that leap are not scared to find out what happens if they work together with AI ... still less are they surprised when the product forged from that joint enterprise is actually better than had they ploughed on alone.

 GPT: 

Also: 

 

 Also, see here for more on that meta-analysis study cited above:

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK