> Why should I be bothered to read what nobody could be bothered to write? In an art-criticism sense I broadly agree with you, but I think you go too far from

> Why should I be bothered to read what nobody could be bothered to write? In an art-criticism sense I broadly agree with you, but I think you go too far from a reader-experience point of view. > The point of writing is communication and creative writing is specifically about the human experience That's a point of writing, but the point of reading is only sometimes about communication. It's also about entertainment, enrichment, or expressing half-formed thoughts and feelings. Take a step back from the autonomously-written novel and imagine something a bit more collaborative. Many players of open-world-ish games develop an emergent story, what if that story could be semi-automatically novelized to document the unique narrative of the playthrough? SimCity 2000 had "mad-lib" newspaper articles that commented on the city's status; consider ones written by an LLM with full knowledge of the game's state and context. > something a LLM can mimic but never speak to authoritatively. Supposing a reader can't tell the difference between an average human-written novel and an average LLM-written novel, where does this authority lie?