AI may have just won a literary prize. My heart weeps seeing it poison our love for books.


I had a hard time processing this news. As someone who has been deeply in love with stories since childhood and who grew up on the works of Arthur Conan Doyle, Terry Pratchett, J.R.R. Tolkien, and other such venerable authors, seeing an AI-written story win a prestigious writing award is hard to digest. 

If you are unaware, the winners for the Commonwealth Short Story Prize for 2026 were announced, and three of the five winning regional stories have been found to be entirely or partially written by AI. Or at least that seems to be the consensus among readers. As a reader and an amateur fiction writer, this hurt me deeper than any other tale of AI corroding our lives.

So, which stories are under the scanner?

It all started when Granta published the five regional winners of the story writing competition. Users on X quickly figured out that some of the writing styles in the story were eerily similar to AI-generated content. 

Researcher Nabeel S. Qureshi called it out on X, pointing to what he described as textbook AI syntax. AI detection tool Pangram flagged the story as 100% AI-generated, a result that WIRED independently confirmed.

Well, this is a first: a ChatGPT-generated story won a prestigious literary prize (The Commonwealth Prize).

“Not X, not Y, but Z” sentences everywhere, the “hums” trope, and plenty of other obvious markers of AI writing.

A major milestone for AI, at any rate…@GrantaMag https://t.co/BWGBpRasNz pic.twitter.com/U6jWejprFv

— Nabeel S. Qureshi (@nabeelqu) May 18, 2026

Pangram also flagged “The Bastion’s Shadow” by Maltese writer John Edward DeMicoli as fully AI-generated, and “Mehendi Nights” by Indian writer Sharon Aruparayil as partially AI-generated. Only the stories by Holly Ann Miller and Lisa-Anne Julien came back as fully human-written.

As to how this passed, Razmi Farook, the Director-General of the Commonwealth Foundation, released a statement saying they don’t use AI checkers to check the authenticity of the stories. “To supply unpublished original work to an AI checker would raise significant concerns surrounding consent and artistic ownership,” he said.

This should tell you the absolutely abject level of AI literacy among literary critics and publishers.

Sigrid Rausing is the publisher of Granta, probably the most prestigious literary magazine in the English-speaking world.

And Rausing holds a PhD in social anthropology from… pic.twitter.com/NHrJ2KVHah

— Mushtaq Bilal, PhD (@MushtaqBilalPhD) May 19, 2026

Granta, on the other hand, says its editors did not participate in editing or selection of the shortlisted stories. More importantly, Granta said it used an AI tool, Anthropic’s Claude, to test for AI plagiarism. The results, it says, were inconclusive. As a result, the publication has decided to keep those stories on its website, and not take any action against them.

Of course, no AI detector is hundred percent accurate, and even the creators of these tools warn against “total belief” in them. It’s a laughably sad and deeply concerning situation. You see the pattern here. We are using AI tools to prove a content was not generated using AI, It’s ironic, and I would even read a critique of this turn of events written by a human, of course.

A prestigious competition shouldn’t rely on the honor system

I sympathize with the foundation and the judges. It’s not easy to tag a piece of writing as AI-generated with 100% reliability. However, we can no longer rely on the honor system either. Even Princeton University had to scrap its honor code and resort to conducting supervised exams for the first time in 133 years.

I am not against using AI writing tools. I even use it to complete mundane tasks like replying to emails and summarizing long texts for bite-sized consumption. And while I don’t agree with using AI for story creation, I don’t mind people doing that, as long as they clearly mark their work as AI-generated. 

Using AI-written stories to compete with other authors who have fought their imposter syndrome and poured their emotions into their work is not only wrong but also a deep betrayal of the human vulnerability and experience upon which traditional storytelling is built. 

It’s the act of creation that brings the greatest joy when you hit the last period on your story or novel. Using cheap AI stories to compete is nothing but a cash grab, and those authors who engage in this should be banned from any and all future competitions.

As research has shown again and again, humans are increasingly finding it hard to detect AI content, and in blind tests, we even prefer it. Oh, let’s not forget, AI is making us dumb, too. But all is not lost, I think. As Sir Terry Pratchett wrote in Hogfather, “Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.” And I have utmost confidence in our stupidity to overcome any challenges thrown by the AI.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.

While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.

What is Skins?

Skins broke the teen drama mold

Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.

Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including Doctor Who’s Russell T. Davies and Black Mirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.


skins


Release Date

2007 – 2013-00-00

Network

E4

Showrunner

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley

Writers

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley



Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life

The series was willing to show the highs and lows

Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.

With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.

Skins spawned several stars

Several actors are now household names

The cast of Skins in a photo. Credit: Warner Home Video

While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such as Superman, The Green Knight, and Game of Thrones.

The show also featured small appearances by Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and The Gentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.

When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.

Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue

Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue

The skins show 3. Credit: Warner Home Video

However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.

Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.

Skins wasn’t without its own controversies

A young cast brought several difficulties

That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.

While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.​​​​​​​

Where to stream Skins

The series has a lasting legacy

Effy in Skins. Credit: Channel 4

For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.


Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.

hulu-poster.jpg

Subscription with ads

Yes, $10/month

Live TV

Yes, various plans available




Source link