The AGI Turing Test Leaderboard: Measuring AI Creativity Through Literary Fiction
Prelude: Can Machines Truly Create?
In this epochal year of 2025, we find ourselves at an unprecedented juncture in human history, where the boundary between tool and creator grows increasingly nebulous. This project emerges from a profound epistemological inquiry: Can artificial intelligence transcend its instrumental nature to become a genuine creative agent? We present a revolutionary evaluation framework that measures the authentic intelligence of AI through the crucible of long-form fiction—the apotheosis of human creative expression.
The Raison d'Être of Literary Creation
The perennial question arises: "Why literature rather than mathematics or computational prowess?" The answer reveals itself with crystalline clarity: novel writing represents perhaps the most labyrinthine cognitive undertaking known to our species, demanding the symphonic orchestration of virtually every facet of intelligence. Literary creation transcends mere grammatical competence or syntactic precision. It requires maintaining coherent worldbuilding across tens of thousands of words, crafting multidimensional characters with psychological verisimilitude, and constructing narratives that resonate with the human condition. This demands the seamless integration of sustained memory, logical reasoning, emotional intelligence, creative imagination, and linguistic mastery—a cognitive symphony of extraordinary complexity. Particularly noteworthy is the existence of established societal validation mechanisms—literary prizes, bestseller lists, critical discourse—that provide objective benchmarks for comparing AI-generated works against the human literary canon. This existing infrastructure offers unprecedented opportunities for rigorous comparative analysis.
https://huggingface.co/spaces/fantaxy/AGI-LEADERBOARD
The Decalogue of Literary Excellence
At the heart of this system lies a meticulously calibrated ten-tier evaluation framework, each gradation corresponding to demonstrable levels of literary achievement in the global canon. The zenith—a perfect 10.0—represents absolute literary transcendence, a theoretical apex where every element achieves flawless harmony, surpassing even humanity's greatest masterworks. This platonic ideal serves as our North Star, though its attainment remains tantalizingly elusive. The 9.1 tier embodies Nobel laureate caliber. Works such as Toni Morrison's Beloved or Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go exemplify this echelon—narratives that plumb philosophical depths while illuminating universal truths about the human experience, wedding timeless themes with exquisite literary craftsmanship. At 8.1, we encounter enduring classics that transcend temporal and cultural boundaries. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and George Orwell's 1984 represent this stratum—works that continue to yield fresh insights with each generation of readers, their relevance undiminished by the passage of centuries. The 7.1 category encompasses global phenomena—J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series or Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code—works that achieve the rare alchemy of literary merit and mass appeal, reshaping cultural landscapes and capturing the global zeitgeist. At 6.1, we find recipients of prestigious international accolades: Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale (Booker Prize) or Colson Whitehead's The Underground Railroad (Pulitzer Prize)—works recognized by the literary establishment for their artistic excellence and cultural significance. The 5.1 tier corresponds to Academy Award-winning screenplays—Aaron Sorkin's The Social Network or Charlie Kaufman's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind—narratives that demonstrate masterful story architecture, complex characterization, and philosophical sophistication. Commercial triumphs occupy the 4.1 level: Netflix's Stranger Things or Marvel's cinematic universe—works prioritizing audience engagement over artistic innovation, yet achieving remarkable cultural penetration. Regional bestsellers populate the 3.1 tier—Nicholas Sparks's romance novels or James Patterson's thrillers—competent genre fiction with dedicated readerships but limited literary ambition. Airport literature defines the 2.1 category—ephemeral entertainments designed for transient consumption, while 1.1 encompasses amateur fanfiction from platforms like Wattpad or Archive of Our Own. The 0.1 designation applies to workshop juvenilia—nascent attempts at literary expression—while absolute zero is reserved for plagiarism or human-authored works masquerading as AI creations.
The Science of Quantitative Assessment
While acknowledging literature's inherently subjective dimensions, this framework incorporates rigorous quantitative metrics to ensure reproducibility and objectivity. The foundational requirement of 5,000 words aligns with the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America's demarcation between short fiction and novella. This threshold tests not merely prolixity but narrative sustainability—the capacity to maintain coherent storytelling across extended compositions. Works exceeding this baseline receive incremental bonuses of 0.1 points per thousand words, capped at 0.9 points. This rewards narrative endurance while preventing length from overwhelming literary merit. Stephen King's The Stand, at approximately 400,000 words, would theoretically maximize this bonus.
The Sophisticated Mechanism of Attribution Analysis
Central to our methodology is a nuanced system for distinguishing AI-generated content from human authorship, employing literary forensics that transcend mere technical detection. First, we analyze stylistic consistency. AI often exhibits preternatural uniformity, whereas human authors display organic variation. Even Hemingway's famously austere prose swells with emotion at climactic moments—such natural modulation reveals the human hand. Second, we examine emotional authenticity. AI-generated sentiment often adheres mechanistically to creative writing maxims like "show, don't tell," while human authors intuitively know when to violate such prescriptions. The choice between "She was devastated" and "The coffee mug slipped from her fingers, painting the white tiles brown" reveals profound differences in creative consciousness. Third, we evaluate cultural verisimilitude. AI typically operates within Wikipedia-level generalizations, while human authors infuse lived experience—the particular petrichor of London rain, the specific cacophony of New York's subway, the unique argot of Silicon Valley startups. Such granular authenticity betrays genuine human observation. Fourth, we screen for derivative patterns. Beyond outright plagiarism, we identify overly schematic adherence to narrative frameworks like Campbell's monomyth—a telltale sign of algorithmic construction rather than organic creativity.
Gemini 2.5 Pro: The AI as Literary Critic
The employment of Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro as our primary evaluator presents an intriguing paradox—AI judging AI—yet this choice rests on solid methodological foundations. Foremost is consistency. Human critics, as Harold Bloom demonstrated in The Western Canon, inevitably bring personal aesthetic prejudices. AI evaluation ensures unwavering adherence to established criteria. Additionally, AI enables rapid analysis of extensive texts. Even Proust's monumental À la recherche du temps perdu yields to computational scrutiny within minutes—a feat impossible for human readers. Furthermore, AI evaluators possess comprehensive knowledge spanning global literary traditions, transcending the Western canon to encompass diverse cultural perspectives—from Japanese zuihitsu to Arabic qasida to Latin American magical realism.
Transparency and Reproducibility: The Cornerstone of Scientific Rigor
Every evaluation is permanently archived in Hugging Face's public datasets, applying peer review principles to literary assessment. Each submission receives timestamping, PDF preservation, and complete evaluation documentation, creating an invaluable longitudinal dataset for researchers studying AI creative evolution. The leaderboard employs intuitive color coding: crimson for Nobel-tier achievements (9.0+), gold for classics (8.0+), and royal purple for bestsellers (7.0+)—providing immediate visual hierarchy.
Redefining the Taxonomy of Machine Intelligence
This framework transcends mere evaluation to propose a new ontology of AI development stages. AGI Threshold (5.1-6.1): Equivalent to MFA graduate competency—consistent generation of novella-length narratives from single prompts, demonstrating structural integrity and character coherence. ASI Stage One (7.1+): New York Times bestseller capability—transcending technical proficiency to achieve genuine emotional resonance and cultural impact. True ASI (8.1+): Harold Bloom's "strong poet" level—not merely inheriting literary tradition but transforming it, creating new paradigms that redefine the possible.
Empirical Findings and Their Implications
Since launch, submissions from leading AI systems—OpenAI's GPT series, Anthropic's Claude, Meta's LLaMA—have revealed fascinating patterns. One research team's fine-tuned model achieved 5.8 points with a Chandleresque noir. While capturing the genre's distinctive rhythm and atmosphere, it faltered in plot complexity and the sophisticated deployment of red herrings—revealing current limitations in sustained narrative architecture. Another submission attempted Joycean stream-of-consciousness, demonstrating technical mastery of the form but lacking the profound interiority that distinguishes Ulysses—scoring 3.2 points. This highlights the gulf between technical mimicry and genuine literary innovation.
Addressing Critiques with Intellectual Honesty
The most trenchant criticism—"Can AI fairly evaluate AI?"—demands serious consideration. We acknowledge this limitation while developing solutions: future iterations will incorporate human evaluators drawn from Iowa Writers' Workshop alumni, Man Booker Prize judges, and contributors to The New York Review of Books. Concerns about Anglo-American literary hegemony are equally valid. While our initial framework draws heavily from the Shakespearean-Dickensian tradition, we're actively expanding to embrace global literary forms—from Japanese kishōtenketsu narrative structure to West African oral storytelling traditions to Indigenous Australian dreamtime narratives. The emphasis on length has drawn criticism—"What of Hemingway's six-word story?"—yet our focus remains on sustained narrative, not flash fiction. As marathon running differs from sprinting, we measure endurance creativity rather than momentary brilliance.
Charting the Future Trajectory
Our roadmap envisions several evolutionary stages: Multi-evaluator Consensus: Implementing Booker Prize-style panel evaluations, synthesizing perspectives from multiple AI systems and human experts. Genre-Specific Frameworks: Developing specialized criteria in collaboration with Mystery Writers of America, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and Romance Writers of America. Real-Time Generation Analysis: Creating NaNoWriMo-style interfaces for observing AI creative processes in real-time. Reader Response Integration: Building Goodreads-style platforms where general readers contribute to holistic evaluation.
Philosophical Implications: The Nature of Creativity
This project ultimately transcends technology to probe fundamental questions about consciousness and creation. As T.S. Eliot argued in "Tradition and the Individual Talent," true creativity requires both mastery of tradition and the courage to transcend it. Can AI achieve such dialectical sophistication? Harold Bloom's "anxiety of influence" posits that all writers struggle against their predecessors. Can AI experience such creative anxiety, or might it achieve greatness through an entirely different psychological pathway? If, as Barthes contended in "The Death of the Author," textual meaning exists independent of authorial intent, perhaps AI-generated fiction possesses equivalent ontological status to human creation—a possibility both thrilling and unsettling.
An Invitation to Participate in History
This platform represents more than an evaluation system—it's a grand experiment in understanding creativity itself. We invite AI researchers, developers, writers, and readers to join this historic endeavor. Submit your AI's fiction regardless of its current sophistication. Whether approaching Twilight fanfiction or Ulysses-level complexity, every submission contributes to humanity's understanding of machine creativity's evolution. Disagreement is welcome—literary criticism thrives on debate. As the history of literature demonstrates, today's controversial works often become tomorrow's classics.
Coda: The Co-Evolution of Human and Machine
Virginia Woolf argued in "A Room of One's Own" that creation requires both physical and psychological space. What spaces do AI require? Or might they create from entirely different preconditions? The AGI Turing Test Leaderboard serves as a laboratory for exploring such questions. In evaluating AI, we simultaneously deepen our understanding of human creativity and consciousness. Perhaps AI will someday claim the Nobel Prize in Literature. Yet human creation will retain meaning, for creativity's value lies not merely in products but in process—in the struggle, failure, and transcendence that define the artistic journey. As Keats wrote of "negative capability"—the capacity to remain creative amid uncertainty and doubt—we must ask: Can AI develop such artistic resilience? Or will it forge entirely new modes of creative being? We invite you to join us in discovering the answer. "If machines can dream, can they transform dreams into literature that moves the human soul?"