Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Using Machine Learning to Distinguish Human-written from Machine-generated Creative Fiction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2412.15253 v1 pith:D5SXWF2I submitted 2024-12-15 cs.CL cs.LG

Using Machine Learning to Distinguish Human-written from Machine-generated Creative Fiction

classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords classifiercreativeaccuracydetectivedistinguishfictiongenerativehuman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Following the universal availability of generative AI systems with the release of ChatGPT, automatic detection of deceptive text created by Large Language Models has focused on domains such as academic plagiarism and "fake news". However, generative AI also poses a threat to the livelihood of creative writers, and perhaps to literary culture in general, through reduction in quality of published material. Training a Large Language Model on writers' output to generate "sham books" in a particular style seems to constitute a new form of plagiarism. This problem has been little researched. In this study, we trained Machine Learning classifier models to distinguish short samples of human-written from machine-generated creative fiction, focusing on classic detective novels. Our results show that a Naive Bayes and a Multi-Layer Perceptron classifier achieved a high degree of success (accuracy > 95%), significantly outperforming human judges (accuracy < 55%). This approach worked well with short text samples (around 100 words), which previous research has shown to be difficult to classify. We have deployed an online proof-of-concept classifier tool, AI Detective, as a first step towards developing lightweight and reliable applications for use by editors and publishers, with the aim of protecting the economic and cultural contribution of human authors.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. StoryScope: Investigating idiosyncrasies in AI fiction

    cs.CL 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    StoryScope extracts narrative features showing AI stories favor tidy plots and over-explain themes while human stories show more moral ambiguity and temporal complexity, enabling strong detection and attribution.

  2. StoryScope: Investigating idiosyncrasies in AI fiction

    cs.CL 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    Discourse-level narrative features, extracted by LLMs across 10 dimensions, distinguish AI-generated from human-written stories at 93.2% macro-F1 and attribute authorship at 68.4% macro-F1.