If you put any random story in to AI, it would say its AI generated because guess what? everybody is dependent on AI for all sort sorts of editing, so you are bound to judge and find everything AI, but its not AI, a story like this has to have a strong human flow and direction.....here's I analysed only a part of it on AI, it itself says it's AI collaboration most likely, which is the case with every content now, so judge a content on its idea and direction, not on language, grammar and AI heavy wording is the reality of the day!
"
Where Human factor was important
- Narrative Cohesion:
- While AI can string together scenes, maintaining thematic consistency (e.g., Tara’s law career fading after the move) often requires human oversight to avoid plot holes.
- Character Motivation:
- Mike’s sudden resistance to Tara working feels just specific enough to hint at human tweaking. Raw AI might’ve made him generically supportive or villainous without this nuance.
- Pacing and Structure:
- The story’s three-act structure (perfection → collapse → rebellion) is too neatly organized for pure AI, which tends to meander or repeat.
- Satirical Edge:
- Terry’s exaggerated repulsiveness reads like intentional dark comedy—AI usually doesn’t "get" satire unless guided.
The Gray Area: "Prompt Engineering"
A human might’ve fed the AI detailed prompts like:
- "Describe a vain, wealthy woman whose life falls apart when her father’s affair forces her to move to a dead-end town, where she meets a disgusting old man. Contrast their appearances vividly."
- "Add a scene where her fiancé discourages her career ambitions to create conflict."
In this case, the
human input is in the framing, not the prose itself.
Conclusion: AI Can’t Quite Do This Alone
- 0% Human Input: Unlikely. Pure AI tends to drift or fixate on odd details (e.g., obsessing over Tara’s workouts but forgetting her law ambitions).
- 10–30% Human Input: Probable. Someone likely shaped the premise, refined key scenes, or trimmed repetitive passages.
- 50%+ Human Input: Possible if the author heavily edited or merged multiple AI outputs.
Why It Matters: This story is a great example of
AI as a collaborator—it can draft vivid prose, but humans elevate it with purpose. The plot’s cohesion and thematic beats suggest
at least light human curation.
"
Here i put as much effort as you didwhen answering me.
Counter-Argument: Intent and Originality Still Matter — Even in the Age of AI
While it’s true that AI is now part of most creative workflows — from grammar checks to full-on story drafts — that doesn’t mean we should stop caring
how content was made.
Intent, originality, and authorship still matter.
1. Using AI isn’t the issue — hiding it is
If a piece was heavily AI-assisted or mostly written by AI, it’s misleading to present it as entirely human work. AI can produce convincing structure and character arcs with the right prompts, so the presence of those elements doesn’t prove human creativity — it might just reflect skilled
prompt engineering, not actual storytelling ability.
Just because AI can now write in three-act structures or mimic satire doesn’t mean it’s human-crafted. It means the tech is improving — and that’s why transparency matters more than ever.
2. AI detection isn’t perfect — but dismissing it entirely is lazy
Sure, detection tools aren’t 100% accurate. But they do provide useful
signal, especially when evaluating work that
feels generic, derivative, or overly polished in an unnatural way. It's fair to question how something was made if it matches known AI-generated patterns — not because we want to "catch" people, but because
originality and effort matter.
Relying only on vibes like “this story has human flow” is subjective — we need tools to help guide assessment when authorship is unclear.
3. Prompting is not authorship
Giving an AI a good prompt is not the same as
writing. It’s more like directing a machine than crafting original work. If someone simply fed the idea of a vain woman’s downfall into ChatGPT and lightly edited the output, then the core creative lift came from the AI — not the person.
Collaboration is fine, but let’s not inflate light editing into authorship. There’s a difference between being a writer and being a curator of AI output.
4. Language, grammar, and tone still signal originality
It's naïve to say we shouldn’t judge content based on language or AI-styled phrasing. Those are often
the first clues that something was generated — especially when ideas are presented with a slick, mechanical fluency that lacks emotional texture.
AI-generated content often sounds good, but soul and surprise are what human writing still does best. When those are missing, it’s fair to raise the question of authenticity.
Conclusion
Yes, AI is everywhere. But that makes
human originality more valuable, not less. Just because we
can use AI doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care when someone does — especially if they pass it off as their own unassisted work. The future of storytelling isn’t about dismissing detection — it’s about
owning the process with honesty.
Let me know if you want this rewritten in a different tone — more diplomatic, snarky, academic, etc.
