mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2412.15253 ↗First posted 15 Dec 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Dec 2024.

Builds on

17 of 43 references.

References · 17

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  4. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  5. 2023From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP Modelscited by 260
  6. 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 210
  7. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 166
  8. 2023Ghostbuster: Detecting Text Ghostwritten by Large Language Modelscited by 91
  9. 2022Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methodscited by 79
  10. 2022Creative Writing with an AI-Powered Writing Assistant: Perspectives from Professional Writerscited by 69
  11. 2023GPT-Sentinel: Distinguishing Human and ChatGPT Generated Contentcited by 43
  12. 2023GPT-who: An Information Density-based Machine-Generated Text Detectorcited by 40
5 more
  1. 2023Detecting LLM-Generated Text in Computing Education: A Comparative Study for ChatGPT Casescited by 32
  2. 2023Distinguishing ChatGPT(-3.5, -4)-generated and human-written papers through Japanese stylometric analysiscited by 16
  3. 2024Exploring the Impact of AI Value Alignment in Collaborative Ideation: Effects on Perception, Ownership, and Outputcited by 12
  4. 2023Distinguishing Human Generated Text From ChatGPT Generated Text Using Machine Learningcited by 10
  5. 2024Investigating Markers and Drivers of Gender Bias in Machine Translationscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

4 papers.