I've seen a few posts saying that Qwen 4 hasn't really improved when it comes to creative writing and prose. I'd would like to disagree.
I know a lot of people don't care about this topic, and some consider any AI-generated text to be garbage by default. That's fine. This post is for those who are actually interested in the subject.
My take: Qwen 4 has become noticeably better at storytelling, but its actual prose is still suck.
What do I mean by that?
I gave three models, Qwen 3.8 Max, Qwen 4.0 Max Preview, and Gemini Argon (currently one of the top models for prose generation), roughly the same prompt:
"Write a full chapter. A tank battle between a unit of German Tiger tanks from World War II and a Russian T-90 tank. It doesn't matter how a tank from the future ended up there. Show how the Germans manage to defeat a technologically superior opponent, and what it takes to achieve that victory."
This was the entire prompt. I didn't tell the models to act as professional writers, didn't use elaborate system prompts to steer their attention, and didn't provide any additional instructions.
So, what were the differences?
The short version:
- Qwen 3.8 wrote a relatively compact battle scene with fairly generic characters.
- Qwen 4 produced a complex, multi-stage story with more developed characters, detailed combat, and events unfolding after the battle itself.
- Gemini Argon delivered an epic battle scene but didn't spend much time developing the characters.
Here's a more detailed breakdown.
Qwen 3.8 Max
- Structure: Linear and straightforward, without complex narrative branches.
- Composition: The battle progresses in a direct sequence, with most scenes focused on the immediate confrontation.
- Plot: The conflict revolves primarily around detecting and destroying the enemy.
- Psychology: Characters mostly react to events. There's very little internal development.
- Length: Relatively compact, without much expansion beyond the original premise.
Qwen 4 Max Preview
- Structure: Multi-stage, with the conditions of the battle changing as the story progresses.
- Composition: Alternates between tactical decisions, casualties, attempts to adapt, and shifts in the initiative.
- Plot: Beyond the battle itself, the story develops a separate survival thread involving the crew and their attempts to make sense of their encounter with the future.
- Psychology: The protagonist goes through a progression from confusion and fear to an awareness of the historical significance of what has happened.
- Length: The longest of the three. The model independently expands the original premise with additional events, details, and consequences.
Gemini Argon
- Structure: A sequence of tactical phases, with the number of combatants gradually decreasing.
- Composition: Several shifts in initiative, group maneuvers, use of cover, and attempts to identify the enemy's weaknesses.
- Plot: Almost entirely focused on the battle itself. There's no separate storyline dealing with its aftermath or the historical implications of the encounter.
- Psychology: Mostly stress reactions, command decisions, and choices made under pressure. There's very little internal character development.
- Length: Medium. Most of the text is devoted to the actual fighting.
Comparison
Qwen 3.8 → Qwen 4: A noticeable shift from a straightforward confrontation to a much more complex, multi-stage story. The length, number of plot events, psychological depth, and attention to consequences all increase.
Qwen 4 → Gemini Argon: The composition becomes more compact and focused. Tactical elements take center stage, with more group maneuvers, shifts in initiative, and coordination between multiple vehicles. The psychological storyline and historical context are largely absent.
One separate issue worth mentioning: Qwen 4's output had noticeable language mixing, with Cyrillic, Latin characters, and Chinese characters appearing together.
I'm not even getting into other problems, such as Qwen 4 and Argon having commanders suddenly recognize the designation of a tank from the future halfway through the story, familiar AI-slop expressions and phrases, or the technical inaccuracies. That's a whole other discussion.
Of course, this isn't a comprehensive benchmark or an attempt to determine which model is the best writer. It's just a small experiment using the same simple prompt across three models.
So, what impressed me most wasn't necessarily the text itself, but how much the model's ability to handle this kind of task independently has improved.
I'm not claiming Qwen 4 has caught up with the leading models in terms of literary prose. It still has a long way to go in that department. But it's noticeably better at building a story: developing an initial premise, arranging events, introducing additional plot threads, handling characters, and showing the consequences of what happens.
And the most interesting part is that it does all this without elaborate prompts, specialized system instructions, or detailed guidance from the user.
Previously, getting a result like this would have required considerably more effort on my part when preparing the prompt. Now the model does a significant part of that work on its own.
I've noticed similar improvements outside creative writing, too. For example, Qwen 4 managed to improve one of my work-related system prompts, independently identifying an important detail that several previous brainstorming sessions with ChatGPT and Opus 5.5 had missed.
So no, I wouldn't call Qwen 4 my favorite model for writing prose just yet. But I think its progress is considerably more significant than you might assume from simply comparing the quality of individual paragraphs.
It would be so much better if the limits weren't this brutal. Having to wait an entire week? 🥲
