AI Storytelling vs. Human: Who Writes Better? 5 Takeaways from AI vs. Human Contest

by Jeremy Esekow

A few months ago, my company, Storywise, ran a writing competition that felt slightly reckless, but completely necessary. We pitted humans against AI storytelling.

I came into this from two very personal places.

First, as an author. I’ve sent out countless query letters over the years. Most were met with silence. Second, as an entrepreneur and employer. I’ve also sat behind the other side of that inbox, staring at hundreds of job applications I simply didn’t have the capacity to answer. I know what it feels like to wait. And I know what it feels like to be overwhelmed.

And lately, another question has been nagging at me.

If AI can now generate entire books in minutes, what happens when the number of submissions to agents and publishers multiplies overnight? What happens when slush piles triple… or grow tenfold? Will it become dramatically harder for human authors to stand out? Will truly original voices be buried under a tidal wave of competent, machine-generated slop?

The Humans vs. AI Storytelling Contest

So instead of wondering, we decided to test it. Rolling up our sleeves, we built a website entry page and set the rules for our writing competition (including a strict no-AI-assistance policy for the authors). Then we assembled judges, secured prizes (first prize was a publishing contract), designed ads, and got banned by reddit (obviously). Then we opened the floodgates!

The rules were simple. Each author submitted one entirely human written chapter from a new manuscript. We then took the logline from the authors chapter, fed it into an AI writing tool, and generated an AI chapter.

Our human judges were tasked with two jobs:

• For each submission, decide whether the author wrote a better chapter than the AI generated version. We gave the judges specific guidelines.
• And from there, choose which were the three best written chapters submitted overall.

What followed was both reassuring and unsettling.

We received genuinely wonderful entries. Many chapters were brave and distinctive, feeling undeniably human. In the end, the prizes went to three fully human authors, leaving me deeply proud. And relieved.

But there were moments when the AI chapter held its own. When they were compelling, mimicking structure and pacing convincingly. And if AI can produce something “good enough” at scale, and submissions grow exponentially, then the challenge for human authors may become insurmountable.

After everything wrapped up, we asked our judges what they had learned. Had the experiment changed their view of AI writing? Were they more optimistic? More concerned?

Their answers were thoughtful and nuanced. Here are the five biggest takeaways from the competition:

      1) Human dialogue is better than AI dialogue.

AI-generated dialogue often lacks human-like emotional nuance and authenticity. Readers could sense that it is “artificial dialogue”, and it consequently creates distance instead of genuine character interaction.

The AI generated chapters consistently underperformed in scenes requiring dialogue. Whether crafting distinctive and believable messaging, original intonations, or mannerisms, (a good!) human author seemed to deliver the goods better.

      2) AI is very bad at pacing.

We actually struggled to get an LLM to write even one chapter longer than 2,000 words. And when it did succeed lengthwise, it generally told most of the story, leaving little content for the rest of the book.

AI struggles with pacing. It’s just too rushed. It can’t make things play out slowly. AI is great when you need to move things along, but as soon as slow burn is required, it collapses. When shocking readers with a horrific ‘bear eating camper’ scene, a good author will have you sweating for pages, not just a paragraph.

      3) Author voice needs to come through from the get-go.

One thing the judges kept returning to was voice. Again and again, they found themselves drawn to manuscripts that carried a distinctive, unmistakable authorial voice.  We’ve seen this pattern before.

Many of Storywise’s customers, when setting up their taste profiles, don’t just describe genres or themes. They describe voices. Sharp, lyrical, commanding, comforting, or intimate. They want to feel the person behind the page. That truth became even clearer in a competition where we were literally comparing human writing to AI-generated prose.

AI storytelling can produce structure and coherence. It can even produce elegance. But I don’t believe it can produce a voice that feels owned and truly fresh. In several cases, the judges chose the human chapter even when it was less polished or less “publisher-ready.”

      4) Did the editor want to read on with AI storytelling?

The strongest predictor of a high score was surprisingly simple: did the judge want to keep reading and to know what happens next? Interestingly, authors who tried to pack too much into chapter one often scored lower.

Overcrowded openings with too many characters, too many events, too much backstory left judges feeling overwhelmed rather than intrigued.

Some chapters had the opposite problem. They opened brilliantly, with tension and promise, but then wrapped things up a little too neatly by the final page. Judges found themselves enjoying the chapter without feeling compelled to turn the page. Others lingered too long in scene-setting with beautifully drawn worlds but weren’t able to pull the judge into a compelling narrative. Delivering an intriguing opening or creating an unmissable hook at the closing were great ways to leave our judges begging for more.

      5)  AI storytelling is getting very good

At times, it was genuinely difficult to tell which chapter was written by a human and which by AI. We even ran blind tests, presenting the two versions side by side without labels. In more than a few cases, judges guessed wrong. That alone was sobering.

For the anti-AI hardliner, there are clues. One telltale sign of machine-generated prose is over-describing details that don’t carry any narrative significance. Confident writers won’t describe the color and quantity of flowers stuffed into a vase in a corridor that the protagonists briefly passed through. If it’s not important to the story, a good author will know not to waste ink and reader attention on it. (Obviously the AI hasn’t been taught about Chekhov’s Gun...ARA)

And then there’s the EM-dash. AI adores it. Find me a ChatGPT response that doesn’t include an Em-dash. Sadly, authors are starting to shy away from the EM-dash so as not to have their writing labelled as AI generated.

The bottom line though is that AI is getting very good at creative writing. Not independently and not magically. Only when it’s being directed by a competent storyteller. Good prompters know exactly what they are doing and how to get the most out of AI assistance and editing tools.

Humans Won vs. AI Storytelling, but it was Close

To sum it all up, we ran our first writing competition. Humans won in the end. It was very close. Buy me a beer and I’ll give you the uncensored version. And we learned five clear lessons that you, as an author, can take with you, as you continue to thrive amidst rapidly changing dynamics:

1. Human dialogue is better than AI-generated dialogue. Invest in your dialogue and give your characters distinctive voices.
2. AI is terrible at pacing. It can’t do slow burn and left to its own devices, rushes through the plot. Master the art of sustaining tension. Learn to draw readers forward without resolving everything too soon and you’ll not only endure in the age of AI, you’ll thrive.
3. Judges love a distinctive authors voice, especially when they are being swamped with AI-generated ‘slop’. Focus on delivering content with the best version of your own unique style.
4. Keep your reader wanting more with a great hook. Get the reader invested in your characters right out of the blocks, or build towards a heart-stopping cliffhanger. Otherwise, you risk your readers not wanting to turn to the next chapter.
5. And finally, we must acknowledge that AI is getting very good at creative writing. It still has blind spots. It struggles with true originality, lived emotional complexity, and the unexpected twists that make a story unforgettable. But as a tool for researching, drafting, refining, and editing, it is improving rapidly.

by Jeremy Esekow (@StorywiseNet) March 1, 2026

***

What about you, scriveners? Have you ever pitted your deathless prose against AI storytelling? Have you read any books or stories generated by AI that you didn’t recognize right away as AI slop? Do you have any questions for Jeremy?

Dr. Jeremy Esekow is the co-founder of Storywise. He’s a South African author who earned his master’s degree in business and PhD in philosophy from the University of Cape Town. He’s worked in the high-tech sector for the past fifteen years, most recently co-founding Storywise, a software platform for publishers, agents and authors. Prior to that, he worked in tourism and spent time in huts and hotels all over Southern Africa. You can also find Jeremy on LinkedIn

Storywise was founded in 2023 to address a challenge familiar to writers and publishers alike: giving promising authors a better shot at publishing successfully and providing publishers and agents with a better way to discover stories that fit the wishlist.

***

featured Image: Mohamed Nohassi for Unsplash