Between Gifted Writers and AI Manipulators
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is now embedded in literary practice, where generative systems support idea formation, narrative drafting, and stylistic experimentation across genres. This article examines how prompt-guided interventions enable a freely accessible language model to generate publishable poems and short narrative prose that are likely to be perceived as original work, thereby complicating the distinction between naturally gifted writers and adept AI manipulators. The analysis investigates the artistic and linguistic decisions that shape stance, diction, cadence, and motif coherence, situating these practices within current debates on authenticity, authorship, and integrity in contemporary literary production. The study also probes generic transformation, cultural relocation, and closure re-engineering as strategies that move beyond paraphrase towards structurally distinct outcomes, illuminating both the subtle gains and the attendant risks of AI-mediated transposition in creative writing. It also considers how such manipulations influence reception and judgement among teachers and readers. It proposes process-based safeguards transparent disclosure, provenance evidence, and assessment designs that reward accountable craft to uphold ethical practice across academic and literary contexts.
Article Details
LICENSE: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license
1.png)
References
• Arndt, S. (2012). The politics of subjectivity in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Half of a Yellow Sun. Matatu, 41(1), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1163/18757421-04101011
• Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
• Birhane, A. (2021). Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach. Patterns, 2(2), 100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205
• Bloom, H. (1998). Shakespeare: The invention of the human. Riverhead Books.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins.
• Denard, C. (2008). “I’ll take my text”: Reflections on Toni Morrison’s intertextuality. MELUS, 33(2), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/melus/33.2.3
• Ellmann, R. (1982). James Joyce (rev. ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2010). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1137–1161. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0565
• Fazi, M. B. (2022). Beyond human: Deep learning, artistic creation, and autonomous critique. MIT Press.
• Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT 3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
• Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H., & Rush, A. M. (2019). GLTR: Statistical detection and visualization of generated text. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-3019
• Köchling, A., & Wehner, M. C. (2020). Discriminated by an algorithm: A systematic review of discrimination and fairness by algorithmic decision-making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development. Business Research, 13, 795–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00134-w
• Lee, H. (1996). Virginia Woolf. Vintage.
• Leech, G. N., & Short, M. H. (2007). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose (2nd ed.). Pearson.
• McCormack, J., Gifford, T., & Hutchings, P. (2019). Autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer generated art. In J. McCormack & M. d’Inverno (Eds.), The computer as co-author (pp. 1–20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18061-7_1
• McKee, H., & Porter, J. E. (2022). The ethics of AI writing: Concepts, cases, and recommendations. College Composition and Communication, 74(1), 90–119.
• Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms: Five strategies, including prompts. SSRN Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4391243
• Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184.
• Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
• Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
• Smith, Z. (2000). White teeth. Hamish Hamilton.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press.
• VanTassel Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners. Prufrock Press.
• VanTassel Baska, J. (2013). Performance-based assessment for identifying gifted learners. Prufrock Press.
• Vuong, O. (2019). On earth we’re briefly gorgeous. Jonathan Cape.
• Whitehead, C. (2016). The underground railroad. Doubleday.