I won't read LLM authored fiction
Refusing to read fiction written by large language models is emerging as a reaction to the growing flood of AI-generated text and music online. Many commenters argue that art’s value lies in human intentionality, lived experience and the possibility of “connecting” with an author, and fear that LLM output is stylistically bland, emotionally empty, or deceptive when not disclosed. Others counter that much commercial genre fiction is already formulaic enough that readers may not care who wrote it, predicting AI will take over low-stakes entertainment while human-created work survives through trust, curation, and its lasting impact.
Human Connection vs. LLM Output
- Many see fiction (and art generally) as a way to connect with a specific human mind, life experience, and intention.
- LLM text is described as logically tight but “airless,” lacking gaps, flaws, and quirks that signal a real person.
- Some argue that context and biography of the creator are integral to the experience; others say only the text itself matters.
Quality, “Slop,” and Emotional Impact
- Recurrent claim: current LLM fiction is bland, repetitive, and stylistically homogenized (“slop”), acceptable for info-dense nonfiction but not for moving fiction.
- Counterpoint: much human output (airport novels, formula romance, background music) is already low-effort and could be indistinguishable from AI.
- Some argue great art polarizes and provokes strong reactions; AI output so far is seen as forgettable rather than love–or–hate.
Detection, Trust, and Avoidance
- Many find it easy to spot unedited LLM writing via recurring tropes and tone, but still resent “wading through” AI content online.
- Some plan to avoid all post‑2022 (or post‑2023) fiction unless recommended by trusted humans, or to stick largely to older works.
- Others say they don’t care how something was produced as long as it’s good.
Authorship, Intentionality, and Ethics
- One camp leans on ideas that decenter the author: meaning is in the text and reader, not the writer’s mind; if the story works, origin is irrelevant.
- Opposing camp insists art requires human intention and interiority; LLMs lack genuine goals, emotions, or lived experience.
- Strong disagreement over whether copying style is acceptable and whether using AI is lazy, dishonest, or just another tool.
Genre Fiction and Market Effects
- Several expect AI to flood lowbrow genres (romance, “romantasy,” military sci‑fi) where readers mainly want tropes, not depth.
- Others counter that even “trash” genre fiction still shows human craft that AI hasn’t matched.
Music and Other Media
- Similar split for music: some are disgusted by AI music as “emotionless,” others already enjoy it and claim it’s often indistinguishable.
- Background/elevator-style audio is widely seen as most replaceable; deeply expressive music less so.
Games and Interactive Uses
- Some are excited about LLM‑driven NPCs and dynamic dialogue, if carefully scaffolded by human-written canon and constraints.
- Concerns: cost, reliability, lore consistency, and whether this genuinely improves play or just creates a short‑lived gimmick.
Future and Unclear Points
- Some predict a future of innumerable personalized models drowning out human expression; others doubt AI will soon write convincing long-form fiction.
- Unclear: whether LLMs can ever achieve the intentionality and distinct voice needed for truly memorable literature.