内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/commonwealth-short-story-prize-ai-allegations/

内容总结：

英联邦2026年度短篇小说奖陷“AI代笔”风波，多篇获奖作品遭质疑

近日，备受瞩目的英联邦短篇小说奖（2026年度）陷入争议。多位获奖作者被指使用生成式人工智能（AI）代笔创作，引发文学界强烈质疑。该奖项由总部位于伦敦的非政府组织英联邦基金会颁发，每年在非洲、亚洲、加拿大与欧洲、加勒比、太平洋五个地区各评选一位区域获奖者，再从其中选出一位总冠军。区域奖金为2500英镑（约合3350美元），总冠军奖金为5000英镑（约合6700美元）。

5月12日，英国权威文学杂志《格兰塔》在其官网刊登了五篇此前未发表的获奖作品（该杂志自2012年起负责展示获奖作品）。然而，短短几天内，加勒比地区获奖作品《林间之蛇》便引发高度怀疑。该文由特立尼达和多巴哥作者贾米尔·纳齐尔创作，多名读者指出其行文具有明显的AI生成风格，例如频繁使用“不是X，不是Y，而是Z”的句式以及“嗡嗡声”等刻板修辞。

前乔治梅森大学莫卡特斯中心访问学者、研究员纳比尔·S·库雷希在社交媒体上直言：“这算是头一遭：一篇ChatGPT生成的故事赢得了知名文学奖。”他贴出文章开篇截图，指出第二句“不是蜜蜂的整齐劳作，也不是砍刀割藤的干净声响，而是一种肚腹之声——仿佛大地吞下一声呐喊并含住不放”正是典型的AI句法特征。

随着文学界深入审视，许多批评者认为该文语言和比喻毫无逻辑，难以理解评委如何认可其价值。另有读者展示检测工具Pangram的结果，显示该文被判定为100%由AI生成。《连线》杂志独立验证了该结果（尽管任何AI检测软件均非完美，但第三方分析一致认定Pangram误报率近乎为零）。

纳齐尔未回应置评请求。其Facebook和领英账号上的帖子经Pangram检测同样显示为AI生成。尽管有人猜测“纳齐尔”本身可能就是AI虚构的身份，但2018年特立尼达《卫报》一篇关于其自费出版诗集《夜月之爱》的报道附有本人照片，证明其为真实人物。

《连线》就此事联系《格兰塔》和英联邦基金会，双方未直接回应，但均发表了公开声明。

英联邦基金会总干事拉兹米·法鲁克在官网声明中表示：“我们注意到有关生成式AI与本短篇小说奖的指控和讨论，对此高度重视，并承诺以谨慎和透明的方式回应。”她强调奖项评审流程“严谨”，评委均具备专业素养。同时她解释，评审过程目前并未使用AI检测工具，“因为该奖项面向未发表小说，将未发表原创作品提交给AI检测器会引发关于同意和艺术所有权的重大关切。我们也不在任何阶段使用AI评审作品。所有入围作者均亲口声明未使用AI，经进一步核实，基金会已确认这一点。”

然而，2026年度英联邦短篇小说奖的参赛规则并未提及AI，仅要求作品为“未发表的原创作品”且为“参赛者本人创作”。法鲁克同时指出，AI检测工具并非“万无一失”，在出现可靠检测方法之前，基金会“只能秉持信任原则”。

《格兰塔》出版人西格丽德·劳辛在声明中表示，杂志编辑“无法控制英联邦奖的评选，也不参与评审团遴选”。她承认对《林间之蛇》的指控，并透露使用Anthropic的Claude模型检测后，结果“无定论”。劳辛写道：“评委可能确实将奖项授予了一篇AI抄袭作品——我们尚不清楚，也许永远无法知晓。”她同样认为AI检测软件在小说竞赛评审中不可靠，并指出“对英联邦获奖作者的AI生成批评——不止一人被指控使用AI——本身可能反映了AI偏见”。她表示，在英联邦基金会做出最终结论前，相关故事将继续保留在《格兰塔》网站上。目前，该网站已在五篇获奖作品上方添加了免责声明。

除纳齐尔外，另两位获奖者也被指使用AI：加拿大与欧洲地区获奖者、马耳他作家约翰·爱德华·德米科利的作品《堡垒之影》被Pangram判定为完全AI生成；亚洲地区获奖者、印度作家莎伦·阿鲁帕拉伊尔的《指甲花之夜》被判定为部分AI生成。两人均未回应置评请求。来自新西兰的霍莉·安·米勒和南非的丽莎-安妮·朱利安的作品被判定为“完全人工创作”。

更令人意外的是，今年英联邦短篇小说奖评委、牙买加作家夏尔马·泰勒也被指使用AI撰写其用于介绍《林间之蛇》的评语。Pangram判定该评语为“AI辅助”生成。泰勒未回应置评请求。

此次风波并非孤例。作家史蒂文·罗森鲍姆本周承认，其探讨AI时代真实性的新书《真相的未来》中出现了AI幻觉引文；诺贝尔文学奖得主、波兰作家奥尔加·托卡尔丘克因承认在创作中使用大语言模型而激怒粉丝；学术预印本平台arXiv上周宣布新规，对未能发现作品中AI错误内容（包括引文）的作者将封禁一年，甚至有学者声称该规定“不可行”。

分析人士指出，这一切表明，法鲁克所秉持的“完全信任作者”理念，恐怕不足以遏制从文学到科研领域中AI生成内容的泛滥。这场争议也催生了网络上的大量戏谑。资深作家布雷赫特·德普尔特在社交媒体上发布了一段明显由AI生成的评论，讽刺性地模仿了僵硬文风和蹩脚的诗意表达：“今天收到了《格兰塔》的退稿信。我感到的：不是恨，不是愤怒。只有一颗太累而不再尝试的心，那种疲惫穿透骨头，继续蔓延。仿佛我放下了一个本不该端起的锅。”

中文翻译：

最初，享有盛誉的2026年英联邦短篇小说奖得主们享受着同行的羡慕。然而，自从他们的虚构作品获得这一殊荣以来，这些作者发现自己面临着文学界的严厉审视，其中数人被指控使用生成式人工智能代笔。

这些指控来自众多读者，其中许多人本身就是作家，他们对评审团可能忽略了非真实创作的潜在迹象表示困惑和失望。

每年，位于伦敦的非政府组织英联邦基金会都会将短篇小说奖颁发给五个地区（非洲、亚洲、加拿大与欧洲、加勒比海地区以及太平洋地区）各一名作家。随后从这份短名单中选出一位总冠军。地区得主将获得2500英镑（约合3350美元），而总冠军（将于下月公布）将获得5000英镑（约合6700美元）。

5月12日，备受尊敬的英国文学杂志《格兰塔》在其网站上刊登了2026年入围的五篇作品——根据比赛规则，这些作品此前均未发表过。（自2012年起，该杂志一直负责刊登获奖作品。）

然而，仅在几天内，一篇作品便引起了怀疑。特立尼达和多巴哥作家贾米尔·纳齐尔的《林间蛇影》在加勒比海地区获奖，但一些人发现它带有AI生成文本的风格特征。

“好吧，这倒是头一遭：一篇ChatGPT生成的故事赢得了一个著名的文学奖，”研究员兼企业家、乔治·梅森大学莫卡特斯中心前人工智能访问学者纳比尔·S·库雷希周一在X平台的一篇帖子中写道。“到处都是‘不是X，不是Y，而是Z’的句式，‘嗡嗡’的修辞套路，以及其他大量明显的AI写作标记。无论如何，这对AI来说都是一个重要的里程碑……”

“他们说那片树林正午时分仍在嗡嗡作响，”纳齐尔这部神秘而富有氛围感的故事开篇写道。库雷希在开篇段落的截图中，将第二行标为他认为的AI句法标志性示例：“不是蜜蜂的整洁劳作，也不是砍刀利落地切断藤蔓，而是一种来自腹地的声音——仿佛大地吞没了一声呼喊并将其禁锢。”

随着文学界对纳齐尔的故事进行更仔细的阅读，许多人批评其语言和隐喻毫无意义，质疑英联邦的评委们是如何看出其中的价值的。其他人则分享截图，显示AI检测工具Pangram将《林间蛇影》标记为100%由AI生成，这一结果得到了《连线》杂志的独立确认。（虽然没有任何AI检测软件是完美的，但第三方分析一致认为Pangram最为准确，误报率接近于零。）

纳齐尔没有回应通过其Facebook页面上列出的电子邮件地址转达的置评请求。该账户以及特立尼达和多巴哥一位名为贾米尔·纳齐尔的LinkedIn资料上的帖子，在Pangram上也被扫描为AI生成。尽管有一些猜测认为纳齐尔本人可能完全是一个AI创造的人物，但2018年《卫报》特立尼达和多巴哥版一篇关于他自费出版的诗集《夜月之爱》的文章——其中包含纳齐尔手捧该书的照片——表明他是一个真实的人。

《连线》杂志就纳齐尔的故事联系了《格兰塔》和英联邦基金会；两者均未直接置评，但都发表了公开声明。

“我们知晓有关生成式人工智能及我们短篇小说奖的指控和讨论，”英联邦基金会总干事拉兹米·法鲁克在该组织网站的一份声明中写道。“我们严肃对待这些说法，并承诺将谨慎且透明地予以回应。”法鲁克为该奖项的评审过程辩护，称其“严谨”，设有多个轮次的读者评审，并且最高级别的评委是根据其“专业知识”选出的。

“我们目前在评审过程中并未使用AI检测器，因为这是一个针对未发表小说的奖项，”法鲁克解释道。“将未发表的原创作品提供给AI检测器会引发围绕同意权和艺术所有权的重要关切。我们同样不会在评审过程的任何阶段使用AI来评判故事。作家在向该奖项提交故事时，即接受了我们的参赛规则和指南。这些规则包括确认他们的作品是其原创。所有入围作家均已亲自声明未使用AI，且经进一步咨询，基金会已确认了这一点。”

2026年英联邦短篇小说奖的参赛和资格规则并未提及人工智能，仅规定参赛作品必须是未发表的“原创作品”且为“参赛者本人的作品”。

法鲁克接着指出，AI检测工具并非“万无一失”，这意味着不能依赖它们来评估作者作品的真实性。“在出现能够可靠检测AI使用情况、同时又能妥善处理与未发表小说相关挑战的足够工具或流程之前，基金会和英联邦短篇小说奖必须基于信任原则运作，”她写道。

在其个人声明中，《格兰塔》的出版人西格丽德·劳辛提到，其编辑们“无法控制英联邦奖故事的选择，也不参与评审团的选拔”。她特别承认了关于《林间蛇影》的指控，并写道，《格兰塔》使用Anthropic公司的Claude智能体对其是否为AI生成进行了审查，但结果尚无定论。

“评委们或许现在已将奖项颁发给了某个AI抄袭的实例——我们尚不清楚，或许也永远不会知道，”劳辛写道。与法鲁克一样，她也表示AI检测软件不足以可靠地评估虚构类比赛的投稿作品，并指出“对这些英联邦作家的AI驱动批评——不止一人被指控其故事基于AI素材——本身可能就反映了AI的偏见。”劳辛澄清说，这些故事将继续留在《格兰塔》网站上，“直至英联邦基金会得出明确结论。”

《格兰塔》网站上所有五篇获奖故事上方现在出现了一条免责声明，重申了劳辛在声明中的观点。除了纳齐尔，另外两位获奖作者也受到了在其作品中使用AI的指控。Pangram发现，加拿大与欧洲地区得主、马耳他作家约翰·爱德华·德米科利的《堡垒之影》完全由AI生成；亚洲地区得主、印度作家莎伦·阿鲁帕拉伊尔的《指甲花之夜》则被扫描为部分由AI生成。德米科利和阿鲁帕拉伊尔均未立即回应通过各自社交媒体账户转达的置评请求。

另外两篇入围故事，分别来自新西兰的霍莉·安·米勒和南非的丽莎-安妮·朱利安，在Pangram上被判定为“完全由人类撰写”。

更令人意外的是，牙买加作家莎玛·泰勒，作为今年英联邦短篇小说奖的评委，被指控使用AI撰写了她为《林间蛇影》列为地区得主所附的描述性简介。Pangram将泰勒的文字评估为“AI辅助”。她未立即回应置评请求。

这些绝非仅有的遭受AI相关问题风暴袭击的作者或机构。史蒂文·罗森鲍姆本周承认，其新书《真相的未来》——探讨AI时代真实性的本质——本身包含了由AI幻觉产生的引文。诺贝尔文学奖得主、波兰小说家奥尔加·托卡尔丘克因承认大语言模型现在已成为其创作过程的一部分，而令其粉丝大为不满。而当免费学术论文分发服务平台arXiv上周宣布一项新政策，对未能发现作品中（包括引用中）基于AI的错误内容的作者实施一年封禁时，甚至有一位学者声称这是不可行的。

这一切都表明，法鲁克那种完全信任作家的理想，或许不足以遏制从高雅文学到科学研究等各个领域中AI垃圾内容的泛滥。

至少，围绕今年英联邦基金会短篇小说奖悬而未决的争议，已经激发了大量巧妙的讽刺。作品发表广泛的作家布雷赫特·德普尔特雷——他还会根据短篇小说后来被选入选集的数量来整理文学杂志排名——周二在X平台上发布了一条明显由AI生成的评论，以生硬的散文和混乱地试图追求诗意口吻的方式影射了这桩丑闻。

“我今天收到了《格兰塔》的一封退稿信，”帖子写道。“我感受到的：不是憎恨，不是愤怒。只是一种心脏因太过疲惫而停止尝试的平坦终结感。那种穿透骨头并持续下去的疲惫。仿佛我放下了一口本不该由我端的锅。”

英文来源：

At first, the winners of the prestigious Commonwealth Short Story Prize for 2026 enjoyed the envy of their peers. But since their works of fiction earned this distinction, these authors have found themselves facing harsh scrutiny from the literary community, with several accused of enlisting generative artificial intelligence to write for them.
The allegations have come from numerous readers, many of them writers themselves, expressing bafflement and dismay that the prize jury could have overlooked potential signs of inauthentic authorship.
Each year, the Commonwealth Foundation, a nongovernmental organization in London, awards its short story prize to one writer in each of five regions: Africa, Asia, Canada and Europe, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. One overall winner is then selected from that short list. Regional winners take home £2,500 (about $3,350), while the top winner, to be announced next month, claims £5,000 (about $6,700).
On May 12, the respected UK literary magazine Granta published the top five 2026 entries—all previously unpublished, per the rules of the contest—on its website. (It has hosted the winning submissions for the prize since 2012.)
Within days, however, one entry aroused suspicion. “The Serpent in the Grove,” a story by Jamir Nazir of Trinidad and Tobago, which had taken honors for the Caribbean region, struck a few people as bearing the stylistic tells of AI-generated text.
“Well, this is a first: a ChatGPT-generated story won a prestigious literary prize,” wrote researcher and entrepreneur Nabeel S. Qureshi, a former visiting scholar of AI at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, in a post on X on Monday. “‘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…”
“They say the grove still hums at noon,” Nazir’s mysterious and atmospheric tale begins. In his screenshot of the opening paragraphs, Quereshi highlighted the second line as what he considered to be a signature example of AI syntax: “Not the bees’ neat industry or the clean rasp of cutlass on vine, but a belly sound—as if the earth swallows a shout and holds it there.”
As the literary community undertook a closer read of Nazir’s story, many criticized its language and metaphors as nonsensical, wondering how the Commonwealth judges could have seen any merit to them. Others shared screenshots showing that the AI-detection tool Pangram flagged “The Serpent in the Grove” as 100 percent AI-generated, a result that WIRED independently confirmed. (While no AI-detection software is perfect, third-party analysis has consistently determined Pangram to be the most accurate, with a near-zero rate of false positives.)
Nazir did not return a request for comment relayed through an email address listed on his Facebook page. The posts on that account and the LinkedIn profile of a Jamir Nazir in Trinidad and Tobago also scan as AI-generated on Pangram. Although some speculation had it that Nazir himself could have been an entirely AI-created persona, a 2018 article in the Trinidad and Tobago edition of the The Guardian about his self-published poetry collection Night Moon Love—which includes a photograph of Nazir holding the book—suggests that he is a real person.
WIRED contacted both Granta and the Commonwealth Foundation about Nazir’s story; neither commented directly, but both issued public statements.
‘We are aware of allegations and discussion regarding generative AI and our Short Story Prize,” wrote Razmi Farook, director-general of the Commonwealth Foundation, in a statement on the organization’s website. “We take these claims seriously and are committed to responding to them with care and transparency.” Farook defended the judging process for the prize as “robust,” with multiple rounds of readers and the top-level judges selected for their “expertise.”
“We do not currently use AI checkers in our judging process, because this is a prize for unpublished fiction,” Farook explained. “To supply unpublished original work to an AI checker would raise significant concerns surrounding consent and artistic ownership. We also do not use AI to judge stories at any stage of the process. When they submit stories to the Prize, writers accept our entry rules and guidelines. These include confirming that their submission is their own original work. All short-listed writers have personally stated that no AI was used and, upon further consultation, the Foundation has confirmed this.”
The entry and eligibility rules for the 2026 Commonwealth Short Story Prize make no mention of artificial intelligence, stating only that entries must be unpublished “original work” and “the entrant’s own work.”
Farook went on to note that AI-detection tools are not “infallible,” which meant that they could not be relied upon to assess the authenticity of an author’s work. “Until a sufficient tool or process to reliably detect the use of AI emerges that can also grapple with the challenges pertaining to working with unpublished fiction, the Foundation and the Commonwealth Short Story Prize must operate on the principle of trust,” she wrote.
In her own statement, Sigrid Rausing, publisher of Granta, noted that its editors “have no control over the selection of the Commonwealth Prize stories, and nor are they involved in choosing the jury.” She specifically acknowledged the allegations about “The Serpent in the Grove,” writing that Granta’s review of whether it was AI-generated using Anthropic’s Claude agent proved inconclusive.
“It may be that the judges have now awarded a prize to an instance of AI plagiarism—we don’t yet know, and perhaps we never will know,” Rausing wrote. Like Farook, she suggested that AI-detection software is not reliable for the purpose of assessing submissions for a fiction contest, noting that “the AI-generated critique of these Commonwealth writers—more than one has been accused of basing their story on AI material—may conceivably itself reflect AI bias.” Rausing clarified that the stories would stay on Granta’s website “until the Commonwealth Foundation comes to a definite conclusion.”
A disclaimer now appears above all five prize-winning stories on Granta, echoing the points Rausing made in her statement. Besides Nazir, two more winning authors have drawn allegations of using AI in their work. Pangram finds that “The Bastion’s Shadow,” by Maltese writer John Edward DeMicoli, winner for the Canada and Europe region, is fully AI-generated; it scans “Mehendi Nights,” by Indian writer Sharon Aruparayil, winner for the Asia region, as partly AI-generated. Neither DeMicoli nor Aruparayil immediately returned requests for comment when reached through their respective social media accounts.
The other two short-listed stories, by Holly Ann Miller of New Zealand and Lisa-Anne Julien of South Africa, deliver “fully human-written” results from Pangram.
In a further twist, the Jamaican author Sharma Taylor, a judge for this year’s Commonwealth Short Story Prize, has been accused of using AI to craft her descriptive blurb that accompanied the listing of “The Serpent in the Grove” as a regional winner. Pangram evaluates Taylor’s text as “AI-assisted.” She did not immediately return a request for comment.
These are hardly the only authors or institutions weathering a storm of AI-related problems. Steven Rosenbaum acknowledged this week that his new book The Future of Truth, which grapples with the nature of veracity in the AI age, itself contains AI-hallucinated quotes. Nobel Prize-winning Polish novelist Olga Tokarczuk just outraged her own fans by admitting that LLMs are now part of her creative process. And when arXiv, a free distribution service for scholarly articles, last week announced a new policy of one-year bans for authors who fail to catch erroneous AI-based content in their work, including in citations, even one academic made the extraordinary claim that this was unfeasible.
All of it suggests that Farook’s ideal of placing complete trust in writers may not be enough to stem the tide of AI slop in everything from high literature to scientific research.
If nothing else, the unresolved controversies over this year’s Commonwealth Foundation honors for short fiction has inspired plenty of clever jabs. Brecht De Poortere, a widely published writer who also compiles a ranking of literary magazines based on how many of their short stories are later selected for anthology collections, posted an obviously AI-generated comment to X on Tuesday, which alluded to the scandal with stilted prose and confused attempts at a poetic voice.
“I received a rejection from Granta today,” reads the post. “What I felt was: not hate, not anger. Just the flat finality of a heart too tired to keep trying. The kind of tired that goes through bone and keeps going. As if I’d put down a pan I had no business carrying.”