Cover not available

Article In: Narrative Inquiry: Online-First Articles

No humans-in-the-loop

The people-less stories generated by GPT

ORCiD logo with link | Carnegie Mellon University
ORCiD logo with link | Carnegie Mellon University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
In the last two years, numerous news outlets and academic articles have claimed that GPT-produced text is indistinguishable from human-written text across several genres. In this essay, we argue that not only does GPT not write fictional narratives like a human, it also often fails to write about humans. We demonstrate how the distribution of stylistic features that we can use as proxies for key elements of narrative, including the frequency of named entities, dialogue, pronouns and the second person, can reliably distinguish between human and GPT-generated text. We argue that these textual markers point to a deeper conceptual difference between human-written and GPT-generated text — GPT texts contain few characters, rarely feature a characterized narrator, and describe inanimate objects more often than people or characters. In sum, the thousands of GPT-generated narratives we analyzed struggled to meet the commonly accepted definition of narrative in contemporary narrative theory, which emphasizes the centrality of the human experience in narrative representation, and encompasses the broader rhetorical communication circuit in which narrative takes place.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Data
  • Character
    • Method
    • Results
    • Qualitative analysis
  • Communication circuit
    • Method
    • Results
    • Qualitative Analysis
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • Works Cited
References (46)
Works Cited
Bamman, D., Underwood, T., & Smith, N. (2014). A Bayesian mixed effects model of literary character. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, (Volume 1: Long Papers), 370–379. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bissell, A., Paulin, E., & Piper, A. (2025). A theoretical framework for evaluating narrative surprise in large language models. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Narrative Understanding, 26–35. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booth, W. (1961). The rhetoric of fiction. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bro, N. (2025). A frustratingly easy way of extracting political networks from text. PLOS ONE, 20(1), e0313149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bronte, C. (1957). Jane Eyre. Oxford World’s Classics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunyé, T., Ditman, T., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2011). Better you than I: Perspectives and emotion simulation during narrative comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 659–666. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chakarian, E. (2025, March 13). Dave Eggers on OpenAI’s new creative writing bot: “A cheap party trick.” The San Francisco Standard. [URL]
Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, M., Durmus, E., & Jurafsky, D. (2023). Marked personas: Using natural language prompts to measure stereotypes in language models. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 1504–1532. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fields, S., Lyans Cole, C., Oei, C., & Chen, A. T. (2023). Using named entity recognition and network analysis to distinguish personal networks from the social milieu in nineteenth-century Ottoman–Iraqi personal diaries. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 38(1), 66–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2001). Commentary: Narrative voices: Ephemera or bodied beings. New Literary History, 32(3), 707–710. [URL]
(2002). Towards a “natural” narratology. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaskell, E. (2013). Sylvia’s lovers (F. O’Gorman, Ed.). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gezari, J. (2022). Jane Eyre’s style. In D. Tyler (Ed.), On style in Victorian fiction (130–149). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guldi, J. (2023). On memory. In The dangerous art of text mining: A methodology for digital history. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haverals, W., & Martin, M. (2025). Everyone prefers human writers, including AI. arXiv. [URL]
Herman, D. (2009). Basic elements of narrative. John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keen, S. (2007). Empathy and the novel. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirilloff, G. (2022). Computation as context: New approaches to the close/distant reading debate. College Literature, 49(1), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirilloff, G., Carroll, C., Daboul, Z., Frank, A., Khan, R., Hinrichs-Morrow, M., & Weingart, R. (2025). “Written in the style of”: ChatGPT and the literary canon. Harvard Data Science Review, 7(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LaCapra, D. (2001). Writing history, writing trauma. Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, L., & Bamman, D. (2021). Gender and representation bias in GPT-3 generated stories. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Narrative Understanding, 48–55. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Yan & He Wang. Who on earth is using Generative AI? World Development 199, 2026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications, 34(4), 407–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marshall, R. (2020). Reading fiction: The benefits are numerous. British Journal of General Practice, 70(691), 79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Menon, T. (2019). Keeping count: Direct speech in the nineteenth-century British novel. Narrative, 27(2), 160–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGurl, M. (2009). The Program Era: Postwar Fiction and the Rise of Creative Writing. Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muzny, G., Algee-Hewitt, M., & Jurafsky, D. (2017). Dialogism in the novel: A computational model of the dialogic nature of narration and quotations. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 32(2), December 2017, 31–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pennington, H. L. (2018). Creating identity in the Victorian fictional autobiography. University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phelan, J. (2017). Somebody telling somebody else: A rhetorical poetics of narrative. Ohio State University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piper, A., So, R. J., and Bamman, D. (2021). Narrative Theory for Computational Narrative Understanding. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 298–311. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piper, A. (2023). What do characters do? The embodied agency of fictional characters. Journal of Computational Literary Studies, 2(1), 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Porter, B., & Machery, E. (2024). AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably. Scientific Reports 14 (26133). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, G. (1985). The narratee revisited. Style 19, 299–303.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shelley, M. W. (1826). The last man (Vol. 2). Henry Colburn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2022). The stylistics of “you’: Second-person pronoun and its pragmatic effects. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stewart, G. (1996). Dear reader: The conscripted audience in nineteenth-century British fiction. Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomlinson, K., Jaffe, S., Wang, W., Counts, S., & Suri, S. (2025). Working with AI: Measuring the applicability of generative AI to occupations. arXiv. [URL]
Twain, M. (1998). Tom Sawyer abroad. Dover Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Underwood, T., Bamman, D., & Lee, S. (2018). The transformation of gender in English-language fiction. Journal of Cultural Analytics, 3(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walsh, M., Preus, A., & Gronski, E. (2024). Does ChatGPT have a poetic style? Proceedings of the Computational Humanities Research Conference 2024, (Vol. 3834), 1201–1219. [URL]
Walsh, M., Preus, A., & Antoniak, M. (2024). Sonnet or not, bot? Poetry evaluation for large models and datasets. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, 15568–15603. [URL].
Wang, Y., & Kreminski, M. (2025). Can LLMs generate good stories? Insights and challenges from a narrative planning perspective. IEEE Conference on Games, 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warhol, R. R. (1989). Gendered interventions: Narrative discourse in the Victorian novel. Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Y., Jiang, M., Xu, J., Zhi, D., & Xu, H. (2018). Clinical named entity recognition using deep learning models. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 1812–1819.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zunshine, L. (2006). Why we read fiction: Theory of mind and the novel. Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue