人工智能能否写出我们想读的内容?
Can A.I. produce writing that we want to read?

原始链接: https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-lines/can-ai-produce-writing-that-we-actually-want-to-read

这段文字探讨了人工智能生成小说的局限性,特别指出尽管像 Claude 这样的模型能够娴熟地模仿布拉姆·斯托克等经典作家的文体“复本”,但在构建有意义的情节方面却显得力不从心。AI 往往倾向于营造氛围、停滞不前的描述——空荡的走廊和无所事事的角色——而不是推动叙事发展。当被要求加入更多动作场景时,文字质量就会下降,这暴露了 AI 从根本上依赖通用模式,而非基于有意识的创作选择。 作者认为,文学作品需要作者独特的“选择”来赋予场景生命力,而 AI 仅仅是综合了海量的现有文本。归根结底,作者对人类在文学中的角色保持乐观。通过类比国际象棋——尽管计算机早已超越人类,但人们对人类对弈的兴趣却达到前所未有的高度——作者指出,文学的价值在于人类的创作过程。无论 AI 未来模仿动作的能力如何,人类创作和阅读人类所写故事的渴望,始终是一项本质且不可替代的追求。

This Hacker News discussion explores whether AI can produce compelling, readable content. Opinions are sharply divided, reflecting a broader debate on the value of human vs. machine-generated text. Critics argue that AI writing is inherently "soulless," repetitive, and overly verbose. Many find its lack of human experience, lived nuance, and idiosyncratic "rhythm" exhausting, likening it to "botoxed" prose. Some suggest that the primary issue is over-reliance on AI; users often accept "slop" without the rigorous editing—the hallmark of true writing—required to make content readable. Conversely, some users find value in AI for technical documentation, summarizing complex legacy code, or as a tool for structuring ideas. A recurring theme is that AI is most effective when treated as a drafting partner rather than a "one-shot" generator. Some participants argue that the future of publishing may lie in human-edited AI content, where the author provides the vision and structure while the AI handles the prose. Ultimately, the consensus is that while AI can generate functional text, it currently struggles to replicate the intentionality and emotional depth that define high-quality human writing.
相关文章

原文

What struck me was that, although this is definitely a better facsimile of Bram Stoker than earlier iterations of the game included, it still describes absence and stasis. The narrator is trying to avoid a “course of reflection” through “constant activity,” but can’t find enough to do to occupy his mind. The Count is nowhere to be found, leaving the narrator to walk through empty corridors where he hears “no sound but the wind in the chimney in the hall.” Not all of the fake samples contained this degree of emptiness, but a sufficient number did to suggest that, though Claude can generate imitations of famous public-domain authors—ones that are good enough to fool the vast majority of even discerning readers, though not all of them—it still can’t reliably have those characters do much of anything. No amount of additional cue cards or feedback could fix this problem; the second I asked it to make things more active, the stunted and more easily identifiable A.I. prose kicked in again.

I hesitate to claim that this is the great tell, because it sounds, well, far too literary, or even corny—I am a bit too bashful to fully indulge in what it might mean that the robots cannot quite bring a scene to life. I will leave that to the poets and the anti-clankers. My only humble submission in this dialogue: the art of fiction relies, in heavy measure, on the reader accepting these descriptive, atmospheric passages that Claude seems to favor as what the literary critic James Wood has called “a camera’s easy swipe.” Wood has argued that an author’s choices, both big and small, always push up through the surface. A.I. makes choices, too, not by drawing on its personal reveries about, say, a street in Paris at dusk but rather by lifting from pretty much every word that’s ever been written. If Claude prefers to write these passages in which nothing seemingly happens and the hallways are always empty and the characters do nothing except idly touch nearby furniture, it’s because we do, too.

Claude, I am sure, will soon be able to have one of these characters at least fire up a stove or drive a buggy to Norwich, and all of this will just feel like a weird hiccup. Still, I am ultimately heartened by this silly experiment in robot mimicry, because at no point did I or any of the test-takers conclude that we wanted to read literature written by A.I., nor were we left with the revelation that reading and writing were no longer necessary.

Whenever I start thinking about this technology and all the possibilities it holds for replacing us, I remind myself, almost as a matter of mental hygiene, that the top grand masters have not been able to beat the best chess computers for two decades, and yet hundreds of thousands of kids now follow chess influencers on TikTok. We still value the human process of chess, how the game makes our brains move. The superiority of the machines is irrelevant when it comes to why we play, even if computers have had a lot of influence on human strategy.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com