# Is Artificial Intelligence the Next Shakespeare? | Iniya Malaikani | TEDxMoorestown Friends School Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-9x4-tV7Qw Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/O-9x4-tV7Qw Generated: 2026-02-20T16:03:57.584+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview The speaker argues that Artificial Intelligence will not become the next Shakespeare because its writing, while technically proficient, lacks the unique perspectives, emotional depth, and nuanced understanding of human experience that constitutes true literature, as evidenced by studies showing AI writing is predictable and fan fiction writers produce more valuable content by exploring existing characters' perspectives. **Key Points:** - The speaker questions if AI-generated literature can be considered 'good literature' compared to human writers like Shakespeare. - Research suggests that AI essays are very predictable and consistent internally regarding structure, word choice, and tone, unlike human writing. - The speaker cites an excerpt from *The Catcher in the Rye* generated by ChatGPT in 30 minutes to illustrate AI's limitations in capturing authentic human experience. - Fan fiction writers, who write stories involving established characters, often provide unique perspectives on events that AI cannot replicate. - Good literature allows readers to enter the minds of others and better discover their own perspectives, something AI cannot achieve because it merely absorbs and replicates existing information. - The speaker concludes that while AI can generate text quickly (e.g., 100,000 words in 3 minutes), it cannot replicate the uniquely human elements—like love, prejudice, or nuance—that make writing valuable. - The final question posed is, "Why should we keep writing?" with the implied answer being to explore what it means to be human. ![Screenshot at 01:47: The speaker poses the central question of the talk on the screen: "Is Artificial Intelligence the Next Shakespeare?"](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/O-9x4-tV7Qw/00-01-47.jpg) **Context:** Iniya Malaikani delivers a TEDx Youth talk exploring the capabilities and limitations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in creative writing, specifically questioning whether AI can achieve the status of great literature like Shakespeare's work. The presentation contrasts the mechanical, data-driven output of large language models like ChatGPT with the value derived from human perspective, emotion, and the exploration of complex societal issues found in genuine literature and fan fiction. ## Detailed Analysis Iniya Malaikani questions whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) can produce literature as profound as Shakespeare's, immediately suggesting the answer is likely no. She references an anecdote about a waiter calling her "buddy" to illustrate how people change, then pivots to the limitations of AI writing. She cites research from Dr. Lee Schwamm stating that AI essays are predictable and consistent internally in terms of sentence structure and tone, lacking true originality. She contrasts this with human-generated work, citing an AI-generated excerpt from *The Catcher in the Rye* which she found underwhelming. She also brings up fan fiction, noting that 150,000 copies of fan-written books were sold by one company, arguing that fans write to provide unique perspectives on existing characters and events—perspectives AI cannot truly offer as it only absorbs and copies existing data. The speaker then asks the audience to consider what constitutes good literature, quoting Linda Elder and Richard Paul: "Reading the written work of others, you enter their minds. In coming to terms with the mind of another, you can come to better discover your own." This ability to gain new perspectives and explore nuances like love and prejudice is what makes literature valuable and distinctly human, something an AI, which is a machine, cannot replicate, regardless of its speed in generating text. ### Introduction and Context - The speaker begins by recounting a personal anecdote about being called 'buddy' by a waiter, setting a tone of observing human behavior, before introducing the core theme: the comparison between AI-generated literature and human literary giants like Shakespeare - The speaker mentions that AI-generated literature, like that from ChatGPT, is not new, citing computer-generated literature dating back to the 1980s. ### The Limits of AI Writing - AI essays are described as predictable and consistent internally, according to Dr. Lee Schwamm, lacking true human originality - The speaker contrasts AI output with human writing by referencing an AI-generated excerpt from *The Catcher in the Rye*, which she found lacking in depth. ### The Value of Human Perspective - Fan fiction writers are highlighted as an example of people sharing unique perspectives on existing narratives, which AI cannot replicate because it lacks genuine experience - Literature is valuable because it allows readers to enter other minds and better discover their own, exploring themes like discrimination and love. ### Conclusion - The final question posed is, "Why should we keep writing?" The answer is that humans write to share unique perspectives and explore what it means to be human, something an AI machine cannot authentically do, regardless of its speed. ![Screenshot at 00:04: TEDx Moorestown Friends School Youth event title screen.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/O-9x4-tV7Qw/00-00-04.jpg) ![Screenshot at 01:47: Slide displaying the central question: "Is Artificial Intelligence the Next Shakespeare?"](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/O-9x4-tV7Qw/00-01-47.jpg) ![Screenshot at 02:10: Slide displaying a quote from Alison Parish about computation being a helpful hammer for breaking things.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/O-9x4-tV7Qw/00-02-10.jpg) ![Screenshot at 03:44: Slide displaying a quote from Dr. Lee Schwamm about AI essays being predictable and consistent.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/O-9x4-tV7Qw/00-03-44.jpg) ![Screenshot at 05:01: Slide posing the question: "What constitutes good literature?"](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/O-9x4-tV7Qw/00-05-01.jpg)