《The Serpent in the Grove》是否由 AI 生成，引发了围绕 Commonwealth Short Story Prize 区域获奖作品的争议。Granta 据称把这篇小说交给 Claude.ai 检测，得到“几乎可以肯定不是由人类独立完成”的判断；作者 Trinidadian writer Jamir Nazir 否认这一说法，并称文本源自童年记忆。评论者承认生成式 AI 常显得像自负却拙劣的写作者，但认为更关键的问题不是“是不是 AI 写的”，而是“人类是否真正判断过它是否写得好”。

文章细读了多处被认为带有 AI 式腔调的句子，例如“sound were taxed”“walking that made benches become men”以及“women who never apologise to furniture”。作者指出，这些比喻与句法让人发笑，却未必以幽默为目的；他质疑一部含有如此荒诞措辞的作品，是否真能代表整个加勒比地区 1 年中最好的短篇之一。与此同时，他也承认自己并非在否定 AI 生成文本本身，而是在强调读者必须运用自己的判断与想象。

全文把焦点扩展到 AI 与人类判断的关系：AI 已能替我们完成许多任务，但其更有价值的用途应是释放时间、磨练判断，而不是让判断退化。作者认为，与其担心 Claude 将来会写小说，不如担心出版方选择用 Claude 来代替自己的审美与判断；无论是道德问题还是“谁永不向家具道歉”这种荒谬问题，做出判断始终是人之所以为人的一部分。

The story The Serpent in the Grove has stirred debate over whether one of the Commonwealth Short Story Prize’s regional winners was AI-generated. Granta reportedly asked Claude.ai to assess it and received the view that it was “almost certainly not produced unaided by a human”; the author, Trinidadian writer Jamir Nazir, denies this and says the text came from childhood memories. The reviewer concedes that generative AI can resemble a vain but inept writer, yet argues that the more important issue is not whether AI wrote it, but whether humans actually judged whether it was good.

The piece dwells on several phrases that seem AI-like, including “sound were taxed,” “walking that made benches become men,” and “women who never apologise to furniture.” These images and turns of phrase make the reviewer laugh, but not necessarily as intended; he questions whether a story with such absurd language can really be the best short story from the entire Caribbean region in a given year. Still, the point is not to dismiss AI-written text outright, but to insist that readers use their own judgment and imagination. (Key numbers: 1)

The article broadens the argument to the relationship between AI and human judgment. AI can already do many tasks for us, but its best use should be to free time and sharpen judgment, not allow judgment to atrophy. The author says we should worry less about Claude someday writing a novel than about publishers using Claude instead of their own taste and judgment; whether the issue is ethics or the comic problem of imagining who never apologises to furniture, making judgments remains part of being human.