Rejecting nihilism: He rejects “authors are just remix machines.” Meaning still comes from human intention and choice.

AI as collaborator: Using Sudowrite/GPT-3 showed that selecting, guiding, editing, and revising by the human author is what shapes the story. The machine is a partner and prompt, not the source of meaning.

Folktale analogy: As folktales evolved through communal variation, today’s AI can be a new weaving thread in collective storytelling.

Where responsibility lies: Even when AI “writes,” direction, meaning, and accountability remain with humans.

Big picture: AI is both technology and a kind of magic—a "harness" that can lift writers and readers, expanding creative possibility when used well.

In short, AI can be a co-author and catalyst or analysist, but humans set the aims, supply the meaning, and bear the responsibility.

At the beginning, it might be boring for some people because it includes a lot of facts and specific terms. The interesting part goes to the middle part which we tried to prompt and write the novels with AI. “I can’t live with that” is the phrase that most memorable to me. It is understandable for a great author to feel the tasteless of AI writing skills, even though they have the brains of every famous authors in the world. Last part, mostly talk about what he think and what will happen in the future by leaving a comment “What happens next?”. There is no correct answer to this. However, it encourages you to think about this problem or topic more.

I recognized one thing that the author describes the characteristics of a good tale. It is the value of passing those stories and belief through generations. It might be true or fake story. However, it gives us some of the morals that we related. On the other hand, AI-generated stories can not write a story with a good moral. They can write but do not know the purpose of this writing. In the end, I agrees with the author on this point.

The world is using AI, even for story making. Although it might make sentences quick- he says it's not a good idea.

According to a professor, the professor calls one ignorant when one doesn't refer to a genious or studying while writing a story, poem, or any other type of writing. People don't think or try to study anymore to make paragraphs.

The writer starts to ask AI to make a story out by giving several prompts to make some sentences.

he thinks there are two types of magic in this article. The awful one is machine can make plausible story automatively. He thinks there are no soul and they are just imitating. And the other awesome magic is that the power of writing is making people think of some subjects.

Also he is curious about that Is there really difference between writers and machine? Because both are writing by using some other's works. he couldn't answer this question.

To sum up he conclude that we can see LLM as two perspectives.

1. it is monster that destroy our intellegence and soul by making us stop thinking

2. it is context chain (like encloldiphia) accumulated cotext of all human and history of the world.

However, The author suggests the opportunity of collaboration with AIs, "Sudowrite". The author emphasize that there is no something brand new, which points out that human beings also study old literatures so that they can mimic them. So the author says that the the most important thing in writing is selection and connection between old stories, not making plausible story.

In this perspective, the program gives the chance of selection to human beings, which makes human can truly write the story. It shows that AI can be a good co-author, or helper for writing without threatening human authors. In short, humans will set the certain purpose and AI will help them to achieve what they want in field of writing.

AI is a tool that imitates and recombines existing texts, but when humans add intentions and emotions, it becomes a new story. Therefore, the author argues that writing is not just a combination of symbols, but a magical process of meaning creation. People have been writing in many languages until now. Even in the age of AI, this will not change. Writing is still an act of meaning and creation.

Ken Liu explain writing machine compared to the random dice in the movie 'Gulliver's Travels', and it has more sophisticated dices.

He suggests the perspective that the machine just pretends to have intelligence and somehow human also pretend. But he doesn't think so and check whether the meaning of the story is real or just fantasy.

He made story with AI throughout some processes.

And he thought that making story with AI cannot take away the intend, emotion and meaning from author. This kind of story has several authors and this makes authors as readers.

He saw the possibility that making story with AI can be interesting and vital way. He thought the magic we have can be continued.

His curiosity goes on with how he can make a story collaborating with AI. By giving instructions step-by-step, he specifies the characters and creates a fairy tale about a princess, robot, and a concern troll. By 'Prompt. Select. Edit. Write.', he edits and completes the story written by the large language model.

The author also points out that the procedure of making his fairy tale with the generative model is somewhat simliar to the procedure old fairy tales are made. He claims that his fairy tale is contributed by countless authors, such as mes Joyce, Sappho, the Brothers Grimm . . .. So are the old fairy tales that are 'born in anonymity through an oral tradition, passed from lips to ear.'

To test this hypothesis, he write a fairy tale named "The Princess and the Robot" with AI. The story is based on Rapunzel. In summary, it is about the story that robot rescue the princess traped in the tower from concern troll who belives that it is protecting her. He sometimes suprised by interesting phares, but generally it was old and not so creative. Finally, the author claims that humans write with purpose, intention and emotions and the magic in AI is not everything although it can be a good partner.

He gave prompt and direction of the story to the machine, and it returned with choices of words and explanation. Then, they cooperated to finish this story by repeatedly editing and writing.

After it’s done, Ken Liu thought it was nothing new and had no difference from what human completely write. For this story, he can’t conclude how many writers involved and how much he contributed to the final story, which is like other stories that also use words from what these writers read before.

But firstly, he questioned how it actually work. He explained that it works by suggesting significantly weighted randomness words such as developed drafting engine in Gulliver’s Travels.

Then after he typed some fundamental storyline, it offered many options the way the story could be written. Most of them are smooth, but some part, it felt like from classic famous books, or someone's writing on the internet.

Finally, He completed the story with the AI: "The princess and the Robot." But there was nothing new actually.

The AI kept us think about what is the difference between imitation and creativity.

Seems like Ken Liu didn’t really agree with that; He tried to write a story with the help of an AI machine, starting by giving the machine a prompt and letting it generate a story. After getting the story, he asked the machine to describe some specific words from the story. Finally, the story he got is the composition of many worlds’ famous existing stories. He concluded that although we have advanced technology cannot replace humans’ thoughts.