What If Readers Begin to Prefer AI-Generated Literature?

In partnership with

Want to get the most out of ChatGPT?

ChatGPT is a superpower if you know how to use it correctly.

Discover how HubSpot's guide to AI can elevate both your productivity and creativity to get more things done.

Learn to automate tasks, enhance decision-making, and foster innovation with the power of AI.

Download the free guide

For generations, literature has been regarded as one of the most deeply human forms of expression. Readers turn to novels, poems, and essays not just for entertainment, but to experience another person’s thoughts, emotions, and inner life. Writing has long been seen as an act of discovery — a way for authors to understand themselves and the world around them. However, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence is challenging this belief and raising a disturbing question: what if readers begin to prefer AI-generated fiction over human writing?

This question gained serious attention after a series of experiments conducted by computer scientist Tuhin Chakrabarty. His goal was to see whether large language models could convincingly imitate the writing styles of well-known authors. At first, the results seemed reassuring for writers. When AI-generated passages were compared with human imitations, creative-writing students consistently disliked the AI’s output, finding it exaggerated and emotionally shallow.

But everything changed when Chakrabarty fine-tuned a language model using the complete works of individual authors. After training the model on almost all of Han Kang’s translated writing, the AI produced prose that surprised even its creator. In blind tests, students not only failed to identify the AI-generated text but often preferred it, describing it as powerful, moving, and emotionally precise. Across multiple authors, AI-generated passages were favored in nearly two-thirds of cases.

This marked a turning point. The long-standing assumption that machines could copy style but not meaning suddenly felt uncertain.

A Challenge to the Idea of Authorship

Many writers have argued that AI poses no real threat to literature because writing is not merely about producing sentences. As Joan Didion once said, she wrote to discover what she was thinking. A machine, critics insist, cannot engage in such self-reflection. Yet writing is also tied to readership and economics. Authors may write for personal reasons, but their work survives only if readers choose it.

If readers find AI-generated fiction just as enjoyable — or even more so — the traditional role of the author begins to weaken. The concern is no longer whether AI can write, but whether it can replace human writers in the marketplace of attention.

This fear grew stronger when AI-detection tools failed to identify most of the generated prose. In practical terms, this means that someone could generate a novel using AI, publish it under their own name, and succeed without readers ever knowing the truth. The boundary between human and machine authorship becomes nearly invisible.

Can Readers Tell the Difference?

Several respected authors whose writing styles were imitated expressed discomfort or rejection of the results. Some argued that AI lacked cultural accuracy or emotional depth. Others said the writing was technically competent but fundamentally empty. Yet when readers — including close friends, writers, and professors — were asked to identify which passages were written by humans and which by AI, most failed.

In some cases, readers even praised AI-generated lines as being especially true to an author’s style, while criticizing genuine human writing as dull or clichéd. This suggests an unsettling reality: even skilled readers may no longer reliably distinguish between human and artificial literature.

Literature Has Always Evolved

Although this moment feels unprecedented, history shows that literature has changed many times before. The idea that literature must reflect a unique personal voice is relatively modern, emerging with the rise of the European novel in the nineteenth century. Earlier storytelling traditions focused on shared myths, heroes, and collective values rather than individual psychology.

Technological and economic shifts — such as mass printing, rising literacy, and capitalism — reshaped literature’s form and purpose. Artificial intelligence may simply be the latest force continuing this transformation. Some technologists even predict that books may one day be replaced by more efficient ways of delivering ideas, reducing literature to information rather than human connection.

Language, Culture, and Power

However, literature is not just about style or efficiency. As thinkers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o have argued, language carries culture, history, and values. AI-generated language reflects the assumptions and priorities of the systems that create it. These systems are largely controlled by powerful corporations, raising concerns about cultural dominance, bias, and the loss of marginalized voices.

AI models trained primarily on dominant languages and perspectives may struggle to represent diverse cultures accurately. The danger is not simply imitation, but who gets to shape meaning in the future of storytelling.

Choosing the Future of Literature

Some researchers have proposed solutions, such as banning AI models from being fine-tuned on living authors’ work, requiring disclosure when AI is used, or treating undisclosed AI-generated writing as a copyright violation. These measures are technically possible, but they depend on collective will.

Ultimately, the question is not whether AI can write novels. It is what we want literature to be for. Is it meant to foster human connection, preserve memory, challenge power, and explore what it means to be alive? Or will it become a product optimized for speed, convenience, and consumption?

Artificial intelligence can generate convincing sentences, but it does not experience grief, love, loss, or hope. The real risk lies not in AI’s ability to write, but in our willingness to forget why humans write — and why we read.