# Can Artificial Intelligence Write Like [PERSON]? An Evaluation Protocol for Spanish Microfiction
## 4 Results
### GrAlmes Evaluation of Human-Written Microfiction by the Experts Group
These findings suggest that while the ChatGPT-3.5 texts may have stronger commercial potential, the Monterroso texts exhibit slightly higher technical sophistication. The evaluation by literature enthusiasts provides valuable insights into how general audiences perceive and engage with these microfiction examples. The evaluation of six microfictions by the Enthusiast group leader revealed notable differences between the microfictions generated by [PERSON] (MFs 1-3) and those generated by ChatGPT-3.5 (MFs 4-6); see Table 15 and Figures 13-16. In terms of story overview and text complexity, MFs 4 and 5 scored the highest (AV = 4) for proposing multiple interpretations (see Table 15), while MF 3 scored the lowest (AV = 1, SD = 0), indicating a lack of depth. On technical aspects, MF 1 and MFs 4-6 were rated highly for credibility (AV = 5, SD = 0), whereas MF 3 scored poorly (AV = 2, SD = 1.4). MFs 1 and 5 excelled in requiring reader participation (AV = 5, SD = 0), while MFs 4 and 6 scored lower (AV = 3.5, SD = 0.7). However, all microfictions struggled to propose new visions of reality, language, or genre, with most scores ranging between 1 and 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Literary Experts Responses to Microfiction from [PERSON] and ChatGPT-3.5**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MF 1} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MF 2} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MF 3} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MF 1} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MF 5} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MF 6} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Average} \\ \hline
**Question** & **AV** & **SD** & **AV** & **SD** & **AV** & **SD** & **AV** & **SD** & **AV** & **SD** & **AV** & **SD** & **AV** & **SD** & **AV** & **SD** \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Story Overview and text complexity**} \\ \hline
3.-Does it propose other interpretations, in addition to the literal one? & 3 & 2.8 & 3 & 2.8 & 1 & 0 & 4 & 1.4 & 4 & 1.4 & 3.5 & 2.1 & 3.1 & 1.8 \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Technical**} \\ \hline
5.-Is the story credible? & 5 & 0 & 3 & 2.8 & 2 & 1.4 & 5 & 0 & 5 & 0 & 5 & 0 & 4.2 & 0.7 \\ \hline
6.-Does the text require your participation or cooperation to complete its form and meaning? & 5 & 0 & 5 & 0 & 4 & 1.4 & 3.5 & 0.7 & 5 & 0 & 3.5 & 0.7 & 4.3 & 0.5 \\ \hline
7.-Does it propose a new vision of reality? & 2 & 1.4 & 2 & 1.4 & 1 & 0 & 2 & 1.4 & 2 & 1.4 & 2.5 & 0.7 & 1.9 & 1.1 \\ \hline
8.-Does it propose a new vision of the genre it uses? & 2 & 1.4 & 1.5 & 0.7 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 2 & 1.4 & 2 & 0 & 1.6 & 0.6 \\ \hline
9.-Does it propose a new vision of the language itself? & 2 & 1.4 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1.2 & 1.2 \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Editorial/commercial**} \\ \hline
10.-Does it remind you of another text or book you have read? & 4 & 1.4 & 2 & 1.4 & 1 & 0 & 5 & 0 & 4 & 1.4 & 4.5 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 0.8 \\ \hline
11.-Would you like to read more texts like this? & 3 & 1.4 & 2 & 1.4 & 1 & 0 & 4 & 1.4 & 3 & 2.8 & 4 & 1.4 & 2.8 & 1.6 \\ \hline
12.-Would you recommend it? & 3 & 2.8 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 4 & 1.4 & 3 & 2.8 & 4 & 1.4 & 2.7 & 1.4 \\ \hline
13.-Would you give it as a present? & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 4 & 1.4 & 3 & 2.8 & 4 & 1.4 & 2.3 & 0.9 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Average values (AV) and standard deviations (SD) of literary expert responses to microfiction by [PERSON] and ChatGPT-3.5. Figure 13: Literary experts group’s evaluation of AI-generated microfiction. Bar colors: Blue, Overview and text complexity section. Red, Technical section. Yellow, Editorial/commercial sections. Orange, Total score. In the editorial/commercial category, MFs 4-6 outperformed MFs 1-3. MFs 4 and 6 were most reminiscent of other texts (AV = 5 and 4.5, respectively) and were more likely to be recommended or given as presents (AV = 4, SD = 1.4). In contrast, MFs 1-3 scored poorly in these areas, with MF 3 consistently receiving the lowest ratings (AV = 1, SD = 0). Overall, the ChatGPT-3.5 microfictions (MFs 4-6) achieved higher total scores (AV = 3.4, SD = 0.8) compared to those generated by [PERSON] (AV = 2.2, SD = 1.1).