I think the crux of this argument comes down to where people think literary value actually lives.
If someone thinks the value of literature is fundamentally in communication from one conscious mind to another, then LLM writing really does look like it’s missing something essential.
If instead the value mostly lives in what happens on the reader’s side (i.e., whether the text actually generates thought, emotion, or insight) then the production process seems less central.
I suspect most disagreement here will reduce to that difference, rather than to empirical claims about how LLMs work.
I’m especially interested in pushback from people who think authorial intent or embodiment is doing real explanatory work here. What specifically breaks if we remove it?
I think the crux of this argument comes down to where people think literary value actually lives.
If someone thinks the value of literature is fundamentally in communication from one conscious mind to another, then LLM writing really does look like it’s missing something essential.
If instead the value mostly lives in what happens on the reader’s side (i.e., whether the text actually generates thought, emotion, or insight) then the production process seems less central.
I suspect most disagreement here will reduce to that difference, rather than to empirical claims about how LLMs work.
I’m especially interested in pushback from people who think authorial intent or embodiment is doing real explanatory work here. What specifically breaks if we remove it?