Update: On Tuesday afternoon, Tokarczuk sent a statement to Lit Hub via her publisher, Riverhead, denying she used AI in her writing for anything other than research. Read it here:
>After Nobel Prize-winner Olga Tokarczuk’s recent remarks implying she had used AI to write her recent novel made the rounds on social media, the novelist shared a statement with Lit Hub via her publisher, addressing the controversy:
Like any other conversation, remarks made before a live audience at a public event can be incorrectly understood.
I did not write my forthcoming book – to be published in fall 2026 in Polish – either using AI or with anyone else. For several decades I have written alone.
I state briefly and firmly:
1. I make use of artificial intelligence on the same principles as most people in the world – I treat it as a tool that allows faster documenting and checking of facts. Whenever I use this tool I additionally verify the information. Just as I have done for several decades by reading books and by exploring libraries and archives.
2. None of my texts, including the novel that will appear in Polish this fall, has been written with the help of artificial intelligence – except for using it as a tool for faster preliminary research.
3. I am sometimes inspired by dreams, but before this sentence too is cornered and torn to pieces by the experts, I hasten to report that they are my own dreams.
Olga Tokarczuk, May 19, 2026, translated by Antonia Lloyd-Jones
If you read her original statement, she gives the impression of using AI for something like "world building", which might be spun into "just for research" but seems like a more integral part of the process than her later statement implies.
>If she didn’t use LLMs to write the literal sentences then what’s the issue?
the issue is that some people have an insatiable need to cause controversy, or rail against (or for) anything AI/AI-adjacent, to speak in half truths and generate "engagement", etc.
The winner of the the Caribbean category of the 2026 Commonwealth Short Story Prize has been accused of using AI. (I think I also read somewhere that one of the judges was accused of using AI to judge the stories but can't find a source for that)
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
The author said that she used AI for research which I find reasonable. I just ordered two of her books House of Day, House of Night and Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead.
I think Burroughs would have leaned into AI... probably would have cut up its responses anyway! We all know that LLMs are terrible at producing interesting writing so I agree with other comments here along the lines of... even if a writer includes generated text, if it rises to the task and the author has somehow made it interesting, good for them!
I don't even know what this story is trying to be about. She won the Nobel (and the Man Booker) many years before the public availability of LLMs. It sounds like she's saying she used LLMs the same way people used Google, before LLMs supplanted it. So what?
It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
She used AI the way I as a writer use my friends online: to say things, see what they say back, and get it to make my brain create new connections.
As a writer, I think a lot about the ethics of using AI in the creation of art. As of right now, here's some opinions/ethics I've formed:
1. there's no such thing as AI art, just AI pictures, AI books, etc.
2. AI can be used in the creation of art, but what matters is that the final contributor to the creation is human.
This one is a little fuzzy and I'm still working on how to formalize it, but the broad strokes of my intent here is that AI pictures where you draw a blue line at the end and say "I did the final work, so it's art" counts as art if the point was the blue line rather than as loophole-finding.
For example, if you're writing a novel that is about AI and you use AI to generate the stuff the AI says, this could be valid art if the point is to interrogate the use of AI in writing as opposed to just to be lazy and avoid having to write some of your book.
But what's important to me is that we explicitly exclude "I made this painting and then asked AI to make it prettier because I am not technically proficient and want it to look dope," which is why I require the final touch to be by a human.
3. AI is distinct from other art-creation tools (like paints, brushes, CNC machines, 3D printers in that it does not permit reproducibility).
I'm still working on how to formalize this, but y'all get the idea, right? AI is kind of a black box that spits out stuff. We can't explain how exactly, and it's stochastic. But the application of paint is also stochastic because of chaos.
No one has flawless control over the flow/spread of paint. Capillary action will have some "randomness" to it. But that randomness is minute, possibly irrelevant to the result. E.g., the Mona Lisa wouldn't be affected if the paint that Leonardo applied had, at a microscopic level, adhered/penetrated the canvas differently.
Overall, the "core" of the work needs to be human-driven. Tools don't affect this, but AI is a special tool that gets higher scrutiny than other tools because it purports to replace the human. It's referred to as "intelligence." Even if it isn't actually intelligent, it is intended to be, and is interpreted and used to replace.
If it's not used to replace, then it's (probably) okay. Still working on my general framework.
But I think about it a lot because I recognize the benefits of AI in art creation. Writing is often lonely, and I do find immense value in just throwing shit at a wall, seeing what comes back, and riffing on that. I don't drop AI stuff into my works.
But I will often be like "oh that's a really cool idea" and then expand/mutate that. Like, "where might a mother and daughter go to bond?" and AI gives me back "spa" with statements like it's dimly lit, relaxing, etc.
If I then write 5,000 words about a trip to the spa, I don't see that as AI writing my work. I see it as comparable to asking my buddy at the bar who isn't attempting to be artistic when talking to me about this kind of thing. Might not (probably doesn't) know I'm even thinking about writing when I ask.
Anyway, that gets to the issue of whether the use of AI makes the end result art or not. That doesn't address ethical issues about using it.
Personally, I feel like the environmental issue is a non-starter. I don't play video games. I don't really use much single-use plastic. My electrical usage is minimal excluding AC. Not only do I think my AI use still leaves me below average electricity user for someone in my country, but I think if I were an average person, my AI usage consumes less power than my peers playing video games or running a pool pump at their house or something.
I think I read that the sum total of all AI usage in the US increases our electrical consumption by some minuscule amount per person. Less than 1%? Seems like a useless line of argument.
Better to talk about how artists' works (and other people's works) were "stolen" (sometimes literally, sometimes just in spirit because a EULA permitted this but users wouldn't have liked it). That seems wrong, and it's the hardest issue for me to deal with personally. I try to minimize AI usage for this reason.
And still better is to talk about how AI seems to be bound for replacing humans-in-art. One of the great joys of being human is that we can create art. And AI is facilitating people abandoning artistic creation in favor of querying AI.
"I wanna read a She-Ra fanfic about XYZ, Gemini write one." How about you write it yourself and experience the frustrating, vinegar-strokes joy of the creative act? Don't throw away an important part of being human for expedience's sake!
I have much less concern about art for non-artistic, non-artisanal purposes; write that one-off bash script with AI! Artisanal-purposes seems more iffy. Like writing a small app to help with a task and then putting it up on Apple Store to share with others. On one hand, it helps. On the other hand, it does hurt the artisanal nature of code creation (part art, but with non-artistic utility).
Jiminy crickets this is probably my longest comment on HN ever. Would love to see some responses because I am trying my best. I think Ai is great for many tasks. But fuck AI in art. I will never knowingly read an AI book. I will never knowingly view AI art-as-art.
(Edited to add more paragraph breaks. Yes, I'm a writer. No, I won't do four rounds of drafts of a HN comment.)
> It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
It's not clickbait.
> Często wprost rzucam maszynie pomysł do analizy z prośbą: kochana, jak mogłybyśmy to pięknie rozwinąć?
> I often directly throw an idea at it for an analysis asking: darling, how could we expand this beautifully?
It's exactly like using AI for song creation where you direct it where it's going. It's no different than asking AI to generate an image and you redrawing it so it doesn't have AI traces.
Honestly, instead of just blanket judging based on if AI is involved, lets just judge the work in question. If you can prompt your way to a nobel-class novel, that is almost even mors impressive than writing it yourself.
Lots of people have written good books, nobody has managed to make AI do anything near that level. Being the first to do something is always impressive.
> Being the first to do something is always impressive.
The companies are making the AI creative (whatever the definition), not her. Don't give her credit for something she had no impact on.
She's using AI for world building and working on top of it. Ask a few people whose job is world building (e.g. games) and no one will tell you that using AI is to be proud of.
On the contrary, Zoomers* embrace AI, just don't want others embracing AI.
Same as people used to surreptitiously Google with their phone held below the table at a dinner conversation, to then participate with an answer. The ones who Google with the phone on the table are the type who would say they embrace AI, the ones Googling under the table would say they do not.
* "by and large" — of course not all, plenty organophiles remain among the digital natives
Not that surprising, it's the generation that for the most part told their children that art was a dead end and a waste of time because there's no money in it. If you start off seeing art through that lens why would you care whether it's made by a person or a computer?
not that i agree with the above posters, but they are talking "boomers" generally.
someone like Olga Tokarczuk would presumably be an exception to the general statement, considering her career makes it clear that she doesn't subscribe to the "art is a dead end and there is no money in it" philosophy ryanmcbride is describing
AI should not be used to replace a core part of what makes us human: creation of art. There is no such thing as AI art. On all fronts, we must fight this and brook no compromise.
Compounded upon this is that artists were ripped off to train AI, which is now being used to destroy artists' livelihoods.
If you generate work enough above average to be awarded major international prizes they you are. If everyone produces the same quality from the same AI it will simply move the bar.
If the AI comes up with better ideas, then why would you put yourself at a disadvantage? Especially if people consider it just another tool even if it did all the creative thinking.
But I will say that accomplished names in software that also make bombastic statements against AI are people that were... "opinionated" to begin with, and skirt the line between genius and madness quite often. I am thinking names like Jon Blow.
I'd say that most of the big names probably have nuanced opinions and do their own thing rather than spending time on social media.
Aren’t we already reaching the point where AI is using content generated by other AIs, like in a game of Chinese whispers? And through osmosis it's now reaching the writings of Nobel laureates too?
No comment on whether the book seems AI-generated or not, but:
It is quite insidious how AI is trained on real-world writers, who then get accused of being a copy, not the original.
It makes me think the future of language, at least in realms where authenticity matters, is going to be constantly changing slang, experimental structures, etc. – all things that boilerplate LLMs will never give you.
That's not what's happening here though, people didn't read her book (that's not out yet) and think it was written by AI because of the style, they think it's written by AI because of statements she made about using AI.
I’m glad you didn’t comment on the book no one has laid eyes upon, written in a language none of us speak!
Re:the rest, meh. People will continue to enjoy good literature — no need to performatively try to prove the unprovable. To say the least, AI is already perfectly capable of adapting new slang and of attempting “experimental structures”.
Sorry if rude. I’m glad you care about authenticity in art — on that we can all agree!
I am starting to think that most of the stuff that gets awards at the Novel ( or Oscars ) level is at best mediocre. By comparison, I wouldn't have a problem telling people to read Sapkowski in original the same way I would argue that the best way to read Pratchett or Adams is in original. That is how good it is ( and translations for either are not bad at all ). Otoh, maybe her creations are not intended for a person like me.
Anyway, I somehow doubt the denial from her as sincere. Not that it changes much.
> I am starting to think that most of the stuff that gets awards at the Novel ( or Oscars ) level is at best mediocre.
Just skimming Oscars for what I know (music), your claim doesn't hold up.
Ludwig Göransson won Best Original Score for Sinners last year. Have you heard that score, or any of his music? He had a friggin' chorus of plastic recorders playing a Baroque dance at the end of one of the Mandalorian episodes. (Who else is doing stuff like that?)
Maybe you personally prefer other film composers, but calling his output mediocre isn't accurate.
BTW-- since this is off the top of my head I'd bet it took me less time and effort to dispute your claim. If so, I also broke Brandolini's Law here which was fun (and easy!).
Oh, you doubt her? Say more. Why do you doubt her? Because of her long history of using AI to generate her previous work? Which of those did you like least?
Tacek, does it matter why? I just do. Maybe I don't like her style. Maybe I don't find her entertaining. Maybe she spoke on TV once and I found her pretentious. The why is irrelevant. The end result is not.
:D We can play this game of 20 questions, but why are you so intent on approaching this rhetorical framework? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I am curious as to what you are trying to do. Note 'trying'; I accept you are prolific poster here:P
>Olga Tokarczuk has responded to the controversy over her reputed use of AI.
https://lithub.com/olga-tokarczuk-has-responded-to-the-contr...
Update: On Tuesday afternoon, Tokarczuk sent a statement to Lit Hub via her publisher, Riverhead, denying she used AI in her writing for anything other than research. Read it here:
>After Nobel Prize-winner Olga Tokarczuk’s recent remarks implying she had used AI to write her recent novel made the rounds on social media, the novelist shared a statement with Lit Hub via her publisher, addressing the controversy:
Like any other conversation, remarks made before a live audience at a public event can be incorrectly understood.
I did not write my forthcoming book – to be published in fall 2026 in Polish – either using AI or with anyone else. For several decades I have written alone.
I state briefly and firmly:
1. I make use of artificial intelligence on the same principles as most people in the world – I treat it as a tool that allows faster documenting and checking of facts. Whenever I use this tool I additionally verify the information. Just as I have done for several decades by reading books and by exploring libraries and archives.
2. None of my texts, including the novel that will appear in Polish this fall, has been written with the help of artificial intelligence – except for using it as a tool for faster preliminary research.
3. I am sometimes inspired by dreams, but before this sentence too is cornered and torn to pieces by the experts, I hasten to report that they are my own dreams.
Olga Tokarczuk, May 19, 2026, translated by Antonia Lloyd-Jones
This just seems like a pretty normal way to use AI
Seems pretty reasonable!
If you read her original statement, she gives the impression of using AI for something like "world building", which might be spun into "just for research" but seems like a more integral part of the process than her later statement implies.
What? So this whole thing is blown out of proportion? If she didn’t use LLMs to write the literal sentences then what’s the issue?
>If she didn’t use LLMs to write the literal sentences then what’s the issue?
the issue is that some people have an insatiable need to cause controversy, or rail against (or for) anything AI/AI-adjacent, to speak in half truths and generate "engagement", etc.
There’s a subset of the anti-AI crowd that treats any involvement of AI anywhere in the chain as tainting the work.
The winner of the the Caribbean category of the 2026 Commonwealth Short Story Prize has been accused of using AI. (I think I also read somewhere that one of the judges was accused of using AI to judge the stories but can't find a source for that)
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/...
Read her books. You will understand she doesn't need AI.
If she doesn't, why did she use it?
Because everyone does?
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The author said that she used AI for research which I find reasonable. I just ordered two of her books House of Day, House of Night and Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead.
I think Burroughs would have leaned into AI... probably would have cut up its responses anyway! We all know that LLMs are terrible at producing interesting writing so I agree with other comments here along the lines of... even if a writer includes generated text, if it rises to the task and the author has somehow made it interesting, good for them!
I don't even know what this story is trying to be about. She won the Nobel (and the Man Booker) many years before the public availability of LLMs. It sounds like she's saying she used LLMs the same way people used Google, before LLMs supplanted it. So what?
"Flights" is a good read.
It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
She used AI the way I as a writer use my friends online: to say things, see what they say back, and get it to make my brain create new connections.
As a writer, I think a lot about the ethics of using AI in the creation of art. As of right now, here's some opinions/ethics I've formed:
1. there's no such thing as AI art, just AI pictures, AI books, etc.
2. AI can be used in the creation of art, but what matters is that the final contributor to the creation is human.
This one is a little fuzzy and I'm still working on how to formalize it, but the broad strokes of my intent here is that AI pictures where you draw a blue line at the end and say "I did the final work, so it's art" counts as art if the point was the blue line rather than as loophole-finding.
For example, if you're writing a novel that is about AI and you use AI to generate the stuff the AI says, this could be valid art if the point is to interrogate the use of AI in writing as opposed to just to be lazy and avoid having to write some of your book.
But what's important to me is that we explicitly exclude "I made this painting and then asked AI to make it prettier because I am not technically proficient and want it to look dope," which is why I require the final touch to be by a human.
3. AI is distinct from other art-creation tools (like paints, brushes, CNC machines, 3D printers in that it does not permit reproducibility).
I'm still working on how to formalize this, but y'all get the idea, right? AI is kind of a black box that spits out stuff. We can't explain how exactly, and it's stochastic. But the application of paint is also stochastic because of chaos.
No one has flawless control over the flow/spread of paint. Capillary action will have some "randomness" to it. But that randomness is minute, possibly irrelevant to the result. E.g., the Mona Lisa wouldn't be affected if the paint that Leonardo applied had, at a microscopic level, adhered/penetrated the canvas differently.
Overall, the "core" of the work needs to be human-driven. Tools don't affect this, but AI is a special tool that gets higher scrutiny than other tools because it purports to replace the human. It's referred to as "intelligence." Even if it isn't actually intelligent, it is intended to be, and is interpreted and used to replace.
If it's not used to replace, then it's (probably) okay. Still working on my general framework.
But I think about it a lot because I recognize the benefits of AI in art creation. Writing is often lonely, and I do find immense value in just throwing shit at a wall, seeing what comes back, and riffing on that. I don't drop AI stuff into my works.
But I will often be like "oh that's a really cool idea" and then expand/mutate that. Like, "where might a mother and daughter go to bond?" and AI gives me back "spa" with statements like it's dimly lit, relaxing, etc.
If I then write 5,000 words about a trip to the spa, I don't see that as AI writing my work. I see it as comparable to asking my buddy at the bar who isn't attempting to be artistic when talking to me about this kind of thing. Might not (probably doesn't) know I'm even thinking about writing when I ask.
Anyway, that gets to the issue of whether the use of AI makes the end result art or not. That doesn't address ethical issues about using it.
Personally, I feel like the environmental issue is a non-starter. I don't play video games. I don't really use much single-use plastic. My electrical usage is minimal excluding AC. Not only do I think my AI use still leaves me below average electricity user for someone in my country, but I think if I were an average person, my AI usage consumes less power than my peers playing video games or running a pool pump at their house or something.
I think I read that the sum total of all AI usage in the US increases our electrical consumption by some minuscule amount per person. Less than 1%? Seems like a useless line of argument.
Better to talk about how artists' works (and other people's works) were "stolen" (sometimes literally, sometimes just in spirit because a EULA permitted this but users wouldn't have liked it). That seems wrong, and it's the hardest issue for me to deal with personally. I try to minimize AI usage for this reason.
And still better is to talk about how AI seems to be bound for replacing humans-in-art. One of the great joys of being human is that we can create art. And AI is facilitating people abandoning artistic creation in favor of querying AI.
"I wanna read a She-Ra fanfic about XYZ, Gemini write one." How about you write it yourself and experience the frustrating, vinegar-strokes joy of the creative act? Don't throw away an important part of being human for expedience's sake!
I have much less concern about art for non-artistic, non-artisanal purposes; write that one-off bash script with AI! Artisanal-purposes seems more iffy. Like writing a small app to help with a task and then putting it up on Apple Store to share with others. On one hand, it helps. On the other hand, it does hurt the artisanal nature of code creation (part art, but with non-artistic utility).
Jiminy crickets this is probably my longest comment on HN ever. Would love to see some responses because I am trying my best. I think Ai is great for many tasks. But fuck AI in art. I will never knowingly read an AI book. I will never knowingly view AI art-as-art.
(Edited to add more paragraph breaks. Yes, I'm a writer. No, I won't do four rounds of drafts of a HN comment.)
> It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
It's not clickbait.
> Często wprost rzucam maszynie pomysł do analizy z prośbą: kochana, jak mogłybyśmy to pięknie rozwinąć?
> I often directly throw an idea at it for an analysis asking: darling, how could we expand this beautifully?
Source: https://lubimyczytac.pl/aktualnosci/23065/olga-tokarczuk-o-a...
It's exactly like using AI for song creation where you direct it where it's going. It's no different than asking AI to generate an image and you redrawing it so it doesn't have AI traces.
That's... wildly different from asking an AI to generate an image and then tracing it.
How is paraphrasing AI text different from paraphrasing AI images? It's still paraphrasing (with different mediums).
Paraphrasing generated text is similar to tracing an AI image. But that's not what she's done.
Honestly, instead of just blanket judging based on if AI is involved, lets just judge the work in question. If you can prompt your way to a nobel-class novel, that is almost even mors impressive than writing it yourself.
> If you can prompt your way to a nobel-class novel, that is almost even mors impressive
I wouldn't call outsourcing your creativity "impressive".
Lots of people have written good books, nobody has managed to make AI do anything near that level. Being the first to do something is always impressive.
> Being the first to do something is always impressive.
The companies are making the AI creative (whatever the definition), not her. Don't give her credit for something she had no impact on.
She's using AI for world building and working on top of it. Ask a few people whose job is world building (e.g. games) and no one will tell you that using AI is to be proud of.
Cool, I also use AI as a tool.
I'm not kink-shaming anyone ...
Kinda interesting that more boomers embrace AI than zoomers.
On the contrary, Zoomers* embrace AI, just don't want others embracing AI.
Same as people used to surreptitiously Google with their phone held below the table at a dinner conversation, to then participate with an answer. The ones who Google with the phone on the table are the type who would say they embrace AI, the ones Googling under the table would say they do not.
* "by and large" — of course not all, plenty organophiles remain among the digital natives
Not that surprising, it's the generation that for the most part told their children that art was a dead end and a waste of time because there's no money in it. If you start off seeing art through that lens why would you care whether it's made by a person or a computer?
Wait, so I'm clear, the idea here is that Olga Tokarczuk uses AI because she's boomer that believes art is a dead end and a waste of time?
not that i agree with the above posters, but they are talking "boomers" generally.
someone like Olga Tokarczuk would presumably be an exception to the general statement, considering her career makes it clear that she doesn't subscribe to the "art is a dead end and there is no money in it" philosophy ryanmcbride is describing
Yeah it's pretty obvious I'm generalizing the entire generation not talking about her specifically.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
AI should not be used to replace a core part of what makes us human: creation of art. There is no such thing as AI art. On all fronts, we must fight this and brook no compromise.
Compounded upon this is that artists were ripped off to train AI, which is now being used to destroy artists' livelihoods.
But if what the AI produces is objectively better then what right do I have to speak against it?
Are you fighting for truth? Or survival while admitting it is better?
This is personal opinion anecdata, but I'm noticing the following.
It's only the mediocres that rail against AI; actual geniuses are like "hey, another tool. Cool."
You haven't noticed this, you just want it to be true because it makes you feel good.
Weird take, but okay.
So, I like the hip-hop. Timbaland and RZA have embraced it; a number of other unknowns who are okay but not great haven't.
But nice try!
If you use an AI to generate all your work, then are you the genius or is the AI?
If you generate work enough above average to be awarded major international prizes they you are. If everyone produces the same quality from the same AI it will simply move the bar.
You're assuming a level playing field, but what if better trained AIs are only usable by a select group of people wealthy enough to pay for it?
It's certainly going to exacerbate the advantage that wealthy kids going to elite universities have at becoming geniuses.
If it didn't exist before and it exists now and is useful, sure.
It's not like you push a button and it releases something awesome.
Nobody in this story used an AI to generate their work, and there's not much confusion about who the genius is in it.
If you use a power saw to cut the boards to build your house, did you really build your own house?
If the power saw also drew up the blueprints of the house and chose its design elements, then I'd say the power saw built the house.
The difference that makes AI more than just a tool is that it comes up with creative ideas, or at least plagiarizes them very well.
At the risk of stating the obvious, you don't have to let AI come up with your ideas. You can just use it to execute them.
If the AI comes up with better ideas, then why would you put yourself at a disadvantage? Especially if people consider it just another tool even if it did all the creative thinking.
Indeed, why would you?
Personally, because I'd feel like a fraud, but perhaps that'll just be the new imposter syndrome.
Yeah, like Rob Pike.
I mean....
nah, I am kidding.
But I will say that accomplished names in software that also make bombastic statements against AI are people that were... "opinionated" to begin with, and skirt the line between genius and madness quite often. I am thinking names like Jon Blow.
I'd say that most of the big names probably have nuanced opinions and do their own thing rather than spending time on social media.
AI removes the bottom rungs of the ladder you need to climb to reach the top.
For now. Soon, the ladder will be a pair of stilts; best get to the very top before that point.
Like aphyr?
Aren’t we already reaching the point where AI is using content generated by other AIs, like in a game of Chinese whispers? And through osmosis it's now reaching the writings of Nobel laureates too?
Pretty hilarious how many of these comments are responding to their own headcannon of something vaguely related to AI… thems the times, I supppse!
No comment on whether the book seems AI-generated or not, but:
It is quite insidious how AI is trained on real-world writers, who then get accused of being a copy, not the original.
It makes me think the future of language, at least in realms where authenticity matters, is going to be constantly changing slang, experimental structures, etc. – all things that boilerplate LLMs will never give you.
That's not what's happening here though, people didn't read her book (that's not out yet) and think it was written by AI because of the style, they think it's written by AI because of statements she made about using AI.
I’m aware; that’s why my first sentence said what it did.
I was making a more general comment about the way AI works and how writers are increasingly getting accused of having “AI-style” writing.
I’m glad you didn’t comment on the book no one has laid eyes upon, written in a language none of us speak!
Re:the rest, meh. People will continue to enjoy good literature — no need to performatively try to prove the unprovable. To say the least, AI is already perfectly capable of adapting new slang and of attempting “experimental structures”.
Sorry if rude. I’m glad you care about authenticity in art — on that we can all agree!
I am starting to think that most of the stuff that gets awards at the Novel ( or Oscars ) level is at best mediocre. By comparison, I wouldn't have a problem telling people to read Sapkowski in original the same way I would argue that the best way to read Pratchett or Adams is in original. That is how good it is ( and translations for either are not bad at all ). Otoh, maybe her creations are not intended for a person like me.
Anyway, I somehow doubt the denial from her as sincere. Not that it changes much.
> I am starting to think that most of the stuff that gets awards at the Novel ( or Oscars ) level is at best mediocre.
Just skimming Oscars for what I know (music), your claim doesn't hold up.
Ludwig Göransson won Best Original Score for Sinners last year. Have you heard that score, or any of his music? He had a friggin' chorus of plastic recorders playing a Baroque dance at the end of one of the Mandalorian episodes. (Who else is doing stuff like that?)
Maybe you personally prefer other film composers, but calling his output mediocre isn't accurate.
BTW-- since this is off the top of my head I'd bet it took me less time and effort to dispute your claim. If so, I also broke Brandolini's Law here which was fun (and easy!).
Oh, you doubt her? Say more. Why do you doubt her? Because of her long history of using AI to generate her previous work? Which of those did you like least?
Tacek, does it matter why? I just do. Maybe I don't like her style. Maybe I don't find her entertaining. Maybe she spoke on TV once and I found her pretentious. The why is irrelevant. The end result is not.
Is it that you don't like her style? What about her style don't you like and what about it makes you think she's lying about how she uses AI?
:D We can play this game of 20 questions, but why are you so intent on approaching this rhetorical framework? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I am curious as to what you are trying to do. Note 'trying'; I accept you are prolific poster here:P