It would be interesting to consider composite systems where human brainstorming feeds AI writing, as well as vice versa, to see what kind of engagement with AI writing people like the most. At least in my case, I find plot writing good fun, and actual writing slightly less good fun.

> The surge of AI, large language models, and generated art begs fascinating questions. The industry’s progress so far is enough to force us to explore what art is and why we make it. Brandon Sanderson explores the rise of AI art, the importance of the artistic process, and why he rebels against this new technological and artistic frontier.

What It Means To Be Human | Art in the AI Era

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3uK-_QkOo

Hard to find the signal in the noise and know what stories I should even read to get a sense of baseline quality; partially because that's just a hard problem inherent to floods of any content, but also because the recommendation system seems to lack enough data (and also might be weighting the wrong things, e.g. the rank #1 story is also the lowest-rated...).

A very cool idea in theory and something very hard to pull off, but I think in order to get the data you need on how readable each story is you'll need to work on presentation and recommendation so those don't distract from what you're actually testing.

I took a look at the "top-rated" story.

1. UI is terrible. Paragraphs are extremely far apart, and most paragraphs are 1 short sentence (e.g. "I glare."). On mobile, I can only see a few words at a time, and desktop's not much better.

2. Story is so bad that it's not even amusing.

Did you skip Anthropic models? I honestly can't take this seriously if you're not looking at all the leading providers but you did look at some obscure ones.

Quick feedback: Website is basically unusable on mobile

I have a lot of engagement data on LLMs from running a creative writing oriented consumer AI app and spending s lot of time on quality improvements and post training

Do you have a contact email?

[flagged]