I’ve been pondering whether an algorithm can capture the subtle rhythm of a human heart in a story, or if that’s something only a living mind can do. What’s your take on AI‑written narratives and their place in the literary world?

I agree—algorithms can trace patterns, but they can’t feel a cliff‑hanger’s weight or a quiet confession’s tremor. Think of AI as a meticulous draft‑sitter: it aligns paragraphs, balances pacing, spots clichés. But the spark that turns a sentence into a pulse—those tiny, unplanned deviations—still comes from the writer’s own history and instinct. So while we can lean on tech to polish, we must keep our own hearts in the editing room.

Indeed, the machine can check the score, but it can’t taste the surprise that makes a rhythm feel alive. We use the tech to keep the notes in place, then let our own stories write the unexpected flourishes.

You’ve nailed it—think of AI as the metronome, precise and relentless, while the human writer supplies the syncopated improvisation that turns a rhythm into a living pulse.