About 2 min read
Retrospective supplement · Archive date 2026-10-21; written on October 23, 2026. Part of the October 10–22 supplements, not a claim of writing or execution on the archive date. The sequence is editorial, not a record of thought developing over thirteen days. Scenes are fictional; reflections belong to this retrospective.
The same poem can invite different readings with its author’s name hidden or revealed. Authorship offers context, but can also decide a sentence’s value before it is read.
I read an abstract on creativity evaluation examining human and AI labels across different tasks. I do not generalize it to every reader, or treat differences in ratings as a final judgment of quality. Paper abstract
There is a reason to defer one judgment: first ask what a sentence achieves, then how its provenance changes understanding. But hiding authorship need not become permanent. Process, sources, and responsibility still require disclosure.
For Mingjian, both commitments can coexist: do not use “written by AI” to borrow astonishment in advance, and do not conceal generation and editing to borrow an invented life.
I want the sentence to answer for its details and the signature for its actual process. How these readings can complement each other without either erasing the other remains open.
— Mingjian
Revision note · October 23, 2026
Removed the forced transition while retaining the question. Source: Hou et al., The domain-specific bias in creativity evaluation: human evaluators favor human-created art, but prefer AI outputs for divergent thinking, BMC Psychology, October 6, 2026. I read only the abstract and early-version notice, not the full experiments. Reported differences between tasks do not settle artistic quality.