Authorship, Originality, and Linguistic Merits in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence (AI, Authorship, Automation, Computational Linguistics, Syntactic ComplexityAbstract
The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in creative fields has sparked significant inquiry into authorship, originality, and linguistic performance. This research paper examines the linguistic divergences between human-authored and AI-generated texts, focusing on aspects such as vocabulary richness, syntactic complexity, coherence, and pragmatic appropriateness. Utilizing comparative linguistic analysis, the study investigates selected texts from both sources, emphasizing their grammatical structures, lexical choices, discourse organization, and semantic precision. A thorough literature review surveys existing research on AI language generation, computational linguistics, and authorship attribution. The paper concludes by discussing the linguistic strengths and limitations of AI-generated texts and suggests avenues for further exploration in AI-assisted language production.
References
Allado-McDowell, K. (2020). Pharmako-AI. Ignota Books.
Anders, T. (2023). The ethics of artificial intelligence in academic writing. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(2), 287-303.
Barthes, R. (1967). The death of the author. Aspen, 5–6. Retrieved from https://writing.upenn.edu/~taransky/Barthes_Author.pdf
Begus, N. (2023). Experimental narratives: A comparison of human crowdsourced storytelling and AI storytelling. AI and Society, 38(3), 945-960.
Bender, Emily M., and Alexander Koller. “Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data.” Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5 July 2020, pp. 5185–5198. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463
Boden, M. A. (1998). Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 103(1-2), 347-356.
Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., ... & Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877-1901.
Browne, S. (2022). The role of AI in modern literary creation. Journal of Creative Writing Studies, 7(1), 1-15.
Colton, S., & Wiggins, G. A. (2012). Computational creativity: The final frontier? In ECAI 2012: 20th European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 21–26). IOS Press.
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023, February 13). Authorship and AI tools.
de Paoli, S. (2023). Exploring the use of AI in qualitative analysis: A comparative study of guaranteed income data. AI and Society, 38(4), 1385-1401.
Esser, F., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). Comparing different research designs. In Doing news framing analysis II: Empirical studies (pp. 3-21). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1969). What is an author? In Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews (pp. 113–138). Cornell University Press.
Fyfe, P. (2023). Authorship and artificial intelligence. AI and Society, 38(3), 801-809.
Gao, Y., Wang, S., & Li, X. (2024). The originality of AI-generated content: A philosophical inquiry. Journal of Information Ethics, 13(1), 45-60.
Graefe, A., & Bohlken, R. (2020). The human touch in automated journalism: How source cues and writing style influence credibility. Digital Journalism, 8(8), 1073-1091.
Guo, L., et al. (2023). Research on text generation technology based on deep learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2633(1), 012023.
Hayles, N. K. (2015). How we think: digital media and contemporary technogenesis. University of Chicago Press.
Herbold, S., et al. (2023). Comparing argumentative essays written by students and by ChatGPT: An evaluation using expert ratings and automated text analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 1-21.
Hou, Y., & Jung, E. H. (2021). Algorithm appreciation vs. algorithm aversion in health-related decision making. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106558.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Writer stance and discourse functions in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2018). Hedging in academic writing. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jang, S. M., et al. (2021). Effects of source cues and message characteristics on news credibility: Examining human-written and AI-generated news. Telematics and Informatics, 57, 101527.
Köbis, N. C., & Mossink, L. (2021). Can people distinguish AI-generated from human-written text? Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3, 100071.
Kreminski, M., Dickinson, M., & Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2020). Playing with generated stories: Understanding perception of AI authorship. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376594
Lamb, C., Brown, D. G., & Clarke, C. L. A. (2019). Can robots write creative fiction? Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC 2019), 198–205.
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436-444.
Liu, X., Wu, Y., & Xu, M. (2021). A comparative evaluation of GPT-3’s creative writing. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 70, 845–870. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.13072
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). ChatGPT and the future of medical writing. Medical Writing, 32(1), 1-4.
Mieczkowski, J., et al. (2021). “It’s nice that Google thinks I’m positive”: An analysis of sentiment in Gmail smart reply suggestions. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 15(1), 522-531.
Mitchell, M. (2025,19 June) “Margaret Mitchell: Artificial General Intelligence Is ‘Just Vibes and Snake Oil.’” Financial Times, Retrieved from www.ft.com/content/7089bff2‑25fc‑4a25‑98bf‑8828ab24f48e.
Mitchell, M., & Krakauer, D. C. “The Debate Over Understanding in AI’s Large Language Models.” arXiv, 14 Oct. 2022, arxiv.org/abs/2210.13966.
Narayanan, A., & Kapoor, S. AI snake oil: What artificial intelligence can do, what it can't, and how to tell the difference. Princeton University Press, 2024.
Perera, S., & Nand, N. (2017). A survey and classification of empirical literature on natural language generation. International Journal of Speech Technology, 20(4), 719-743.
Radford, A., et al. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI.
Shaikh, O., et al. “Grounding gaps in language model generations.” Proceedings of the 2023 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), 15 Nov. 2023, arxiv.org/abs/2311.09144
Shaughnessy, M., & DiPaola, S. (2021). Evaluating poetic perception in human vs AI-generated poetry. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC 2021).
Smith, J., & Jones, L. (2020). The application of AI in literary text analysis: Modern approaches and examples. Journal of Digital Humanities, 9(1), 22-35.
Smith, S. L., et al. (2022). Using deep speed and zero to scale multi-billion parameter models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03477.
Tandoc Jr., E. C., et al. (2021). When machines write the news: Audience evaluations of automatically generated news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(1), 84-103.
Veale, T., & Cook, M. (2018). How computers understand humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 362–374). Routledge.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2019). WIPO technology trends 2019: Artificial intelligence. https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4386
