Can ChatGPT Write a Better Novel Than I Can?

tech.hindustantimes.com:

I'm no enemy of artificial intelligence, and no stranger to the notion of combined human-computer authorship. I've written about the goofy appeal of movies scripted by neural nets. For a class project in college, I submitted a computer program that generated outlines for “Star Trek” episodes. But as a working novelist, I'm naturally concerned at the prospect that ChatGPT and its cousins might displace human authors. That's been the smart talk lately, as large language models herald a new era of AI.

The novel's demise has been predicted often, but after a series of chats with ChatGPT, I think this time the voices of gloom might have a point.

Well, half a point.

Novels matter. Reading serious literature increases empathy and an appreciation of human complexity. That's why I've long argued that novels are crucial to making democracy work.

So how good is ChatGPT at fiction? I tried dozens of tests, from asking the bot to imitate the voice of a known writer to inviting it to create on its own.

The results were mixed.

The bot was dreadful at reproducing the voices of a great novelists of earlier eras and today's big sellers. For instance, its version of Stephen King began like a bad book jacket: “One day, strange things began to happen in Millfield. People started to disappear, and strange whispers echoed through the streets at night.”

Fine. ChatGPT can't (yet) keep up with the bigs. Neither can the rest of us. But when we allow the bot to flex its own imaginative muscles, things start to get interesting.

For example, when I asked the software to write scary stories, the results astonished me. ChatGPT has clearly learned a key page-turning formula or two. Here's one opening paragraph:

Not bad! Though the prose won't