alt Hacker NewsIt's different. Yes you can be a good writer or musician and convey whatever emotion you want. But if you have truly experienced that emotion or experience and unflinchingly hone your writing to convey the true experience of it, it shows. It's the difference between a good song and a great song, or a good story and a great story.
I'm all in on AI, but not to replace true human artistic expression. There's something we feel to our core when someone nails the expression of visceral emotion or experience.
It feels like you've been cheated when you felt some emotion reading a true story then discovered it was generated by an LLM, or equally, by an artist who admits it was a lie. But I don't think that's because the writing isn't great - it often is great, which is why it affects the reader so much. I suspect the real complaint that people have is not the writing itself but the knowledge that an LLM generated it. You see people here discussing clues that helped them guess it was an LLM, and asking for authors to disclose that, etc. People worry that the emotion they feel from reading it isn't the same the author felt themselves. What they're forgetting is that good human writers can lead you to feel emotions they never experienced themselves either. You say a "great" story can't be written that way and perhaps if you set the bar high enough that might be true, but for more common writing like the TFA, there's no need to have experienced the emotion first hand if the writer is capable enough - human or LLM.