When a Dialog becomes a Monologue: A debate on custom-made literature with generative AI (2025)

Abstract: This paper presents a discussion on the potential effects of AI-generated fiction on its users in contrast to traditional literature. After discussing the importance of reading fiction and introducing the technical aspects of long story generation, we look at four aspects of how AI-generated fiction can affect users and society, namely, democratic use, creativity, customization and connectedness. We close with a discussion focusing on the needs for media education.

## introduction this interdisciplinary paper is based on a discussion between a computer linguist and a cultural anthropologist, both with a strong academic and practical interest in art. the discussion evolves around the effects fictional books written by artificial intelligence (ai) via text prompts can have on the users, i.e. the people prompting the fiction first and foremost to read it themselves. recent technological advances have refocused discussions on the possible impact of technology (e.g. @xcite to its real effects on varied segments of society such as teachers and students @xcite , creatives @xcite , and technical users @xcite . whether or in how far ai-generated fiction can be considered art @xcite ) -a barrier that even "traditional" books may have trouble clearing -or whether its contents are appropriate are not the subject of this article. we focus instead on an overlooked area of study: the impact of ai-generated fiction on the side of the prompter, that is, the "user", and particularly in what it means for them to generate their own book with the intention to read it themselves as opposed to reading a book from a conventional author. we define "user" as a human reader who willingly generates a work of fiction for their own consumption and present a human-centered framework on how to analyze the impact of ai. the intersection of reading fiction and ai is the result of two massively-popular phenomenons crashing against each other: reading is both a popular hobby and a key component of modern society (section 2.1) while generative ai has revolutionized the ways in which we create novel texts (section 2.2). it is impossible to assess how many works of fiction are created to be consumed by their creators alone, but most indicators point towards an explosion in the number of written works created with ai across all forums. an overwhelming number of ai submissions initially focused on literary markets like amazon and sci-fi magazine clarkesworld @xcite , but today even noncommercial forums like the fanfiction repository archive of our own (ao3) are experiencing an exponential rise in the number of ai-generated submissions (see figure 1 ). the real numbers, both public and private, are likely to be much higher than reported @xcite . ## analysis our discussion focuses on four specific dynamics of reading and authoring fictional works of literature with ai, centering on works created for the individuals themselves foot_0 : democratic use, creativity, customization and connectedness. ## discussion ai is here to stay, and some kind of accommodation is necessary both from a technology-centered view and a human-centered approach because "ubiquitous" does not equal "good" -just as cigarettes were commonplace @xcite ) so could a hypothetically-toxic ai become a major part of our lives. we therefore agree that some kind of "control institution" will emerge to ensure that fiction does not have destructive consequences for the individual or society. whether this institution will be a concrete organization or a set of laws, guidelines, and customs is still unclear. we argue for a balance between the greatest possible agency of the individual user, which helps to establish the internet as a free, uncensored space where creativity and new ideas can flourish, while also protecting both the individual and the population. censoring individual words or phrases seems a losing proposition both from a technical and societal point of view: workarounds will always be found and it is a user's prerogative to have full, uncensored access to these tools along with the responsibility for what they do with them. a point of disagreement is whether censored systems still have a role to play in modern society. one author considers that such mechanisms will always be arbitrary, neglecting possible positive effects of "evil" concepts such as the occupation with the inevitable terror of life and limiting inventiveness to an unacceptable level. another author believes that there's value in ensuring that users are not accidentally confronted with uncomfortable and potentially dangerous ideas. we nonetheless agree that users need to be taught how to use these tools in a way that expands their creative horizons. blindly accepting ai suggestions is more likely than not to constrict and bias the users' creativity, leading to more homogeneous, less vibrant, and less creative works. formal education needs to adapt to this new landscape. we need continued, strong education programs ensuring that students deal more critically with content no matter who generates it, applying critical thinking to the reliability and intention behind their social media feeds, their effects in shaping their daily environment, and how to better engage with controversial topics. teaching how to write prompts that include social issues, new perspectives, personal trauma etc., is how we avoid complacent self-reflection and "tech bubbles". finally, we believe that the figure of the author will become increasingly important, putting the focus back on the human being. @xcite argues that art requires an artist who takes responsibility for the recognition or criticism of a work, and @xcite write that "in the act of writing lies the attempt to make something out of life that is more than personal, to free life from that which imprisons it". @xcite further argue that "artists are different from normal people", but whether this special status of the artist is still desirable at a time when everyone can easily create art remains debatable. crucial to this debate are tools to reliably identify ai-generated texts, as they would return readers their agency regarding when and how to let ai works into their lives and would turn the concealment of ai authorship from an oversight into a deliberate act.