People say things such as "AI art is garbage" and "It's plagiarism," but also "AI art is going to destroy creativity itself." These reactions are contradictory, but nobody seems to notice. AI is the bogeyman in the shadows: The obscurity, more than anything the monster has actually perpetrated, is the source of loathing and despair. Consider the ongoing feud between the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. The writers are on strike, arguing, among other things, that studios should not be able to use AI tools to replace their labor.

In his afterword to the short murder mystery Death of an Author, the writer Stephen Marche invokes a concept called Moravec's paradox. Hans Moravec, a robotics scientist, observed that tasks human beings find challenging, such as playing chess, are easy for computers, while many of the actions human beings effortlessly perform without conscious thought, such as perception or oriented movement through space, are extremely difficult for the machines. Moravec's paradox is a useful way to think about the surprising ways that Death of an Author, described by its publisher as a "groundbreaking experiment" in artificial intelligence, succeeds. Jacob Weisberg, the head of podcast production company Pushkin Industries (and a former Slate editor in chief), asked Marche, a journalist who writes about artificial intelligence, to make Death of an Author earlier this year. The goal was a novella whose text was to be 95 percent computer-generated.