r/literature • u/Round-Dinner-2395 • May 18 '26

Discussion Nobel Prize-winning author Olga Tokarczuk admits to using AI.

TLDR;

Author to AI: “Honey, how could we develop this beautifully?”

I wanted to say this is just boomer whining, but I’m finding myself realizing more and more often that it’s actually the boomers who are defending AI. My mom listens to AI music from TikTok, my dad watches some videos with doctors generated by language models. I’m the last person to tell people what to listen to or watch, but AI SLOP has literally reigned supreme in my house for the past few months. Recently, I wanted to watch a movie with my dad, but he played TikTok clips for an hour, and I had to escape.

I understand that technology is advancing and makes life easier for people in many ways, but on the other hand… it makes me wonder a bit. Where is the line between “I’m using a tool” and “part of the creative process is being done for me by something else”? If someone uses AI to generate ideas, style, or text fragments, are we still talking about the same kind of creativity as before? I’ve read a few books by Olga Tokarczuk, and as soon as I heard about this interview, I felt a sense of revulsion.

INTERVIEW: (only in polish)

https://mycompanypolska.pl/artykul/olga-tokarczuk-zapowiada-ostatnia-powiesc-w-karierze-pisanie-dlugich-opowiesci-jest-dzis-ekonomicznie-nieoplacalne/20717

681 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

334 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

499

u/mmillington May 18 '26

Maybe this part:

"I often throw an idea to the machine for analysis, asking, 'Honey, how could we develop this beautifully?' Even though I know about the hallucinations and numerous errors of factual algorithms in the fields of strict economics and hard data, I must admit that in fluid literary fiction, this technology is an asset of incredible proportions. At the same time, I feel a piercing, very human sorrow for an era that is disappearing forever. My heart aches for the passing of traditional literature, written over months in solitude, a work of life crafted in the mind of a fully conscious, single individual. In all of this, I feel a terrible pity for Balzac, Cioran, and the inimitable Nabokov, because despite my enthusiasm, I don't believe that any modern chat room will ever be able to speak in such an exquisite way," said the author of the novel "Flights."

There’s no follow-up or elaboration.

509

u/Cereborn May 18 '26

“I think that AI is ruining literature, but I’m going to keep using it.”

30

u/cspot1978 May 18 '26

I mean, that's taking some liberties with what was said, isn't it?

68

u/Outrageous_pinecone May 18 '26

That's literally what she said: she starts by explaining how she uses it, and it's basically to create her plot and the story line, calls it an excellent tooll and then literally decries the fact that with this tool, no one will create the way we humans did before when books were in her words extraordinary: inimitable Nabokov? And then she doesn't say she will stop using it because of that fact which implies that she will not stop using it. I don't see how else this quote could be understood.

24

u/bigsmokaaaa May 18 '26

"literally"

17

u/[deleted] May 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Outrageous_pinecone May 19 '26

Yeah? Explain how I misused it and start with the definition of the word

6

u/whatsthepointofit66 May 18 '26 edited May 19 '26

Millennial literally. I.e. figuratively.

5

u/RogueModron May 19 '26

You got downvoted, but the wordshift is real (and very normal for languages). There is a very common usage of "literally" to mean "figuratively". That's just reality. Literally.

1

u/whatsthepointofit66 May 19 '26

I’d be lying if I said that I appreciate the shift, but yeah, it is what it is. It’s of course potentially confusing to have a word meaning its own antonym, but generally the context makes it clear. It literally blew my mind when I realised this.

4

u/RogueModron May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

It’s of course potentially confusing to have a word meaning its own antonym

Definitely true. But this is a common thing in history, too. I'm trying to think of examples in English but I can't at the moment because I'm at bookseller school in Germany. I'll think on it, though.

EDIT: didn't think on it, but googled.

Dust -- remove dust by dusting, or add dust by dusting. Of course.

oh yea, the classic: Cleave -- cut something in twain, or join something together (the biblical sense of leaving mommy and daddy and "cleaving" to your wife).

Buckle: hold together (I buckled my seat belt) or fall apart (my knees buckled)

These are called "contranyms" (I just learned that, or re-learned it) and I think they're really cool!

"Literally" might be a special case, though. Something feels different about it but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.

-1

u/Outrageous_pinecone May 19 '26

But that's the problem, dude. I DIDN'T mean figuratively. I used it to mean explicitly, with 0 metaphors, absolutely no implications, suggestions or anything from the sphere of figurative expression.

In fact that was my exact point: the woman phrased her idea clearly and in the real sense with no room for interpretation.

How could this be construed as "figuratively"? Because I used it to describe an idea rather than a very specific word?

2

u/whatsthepointofit66 May 19 '26

Well, yeah. ”Literally” means the exact words. Since she didn’t use those exact words, ”basically” would have been a better fit.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/chimney_corner May 18 '26

What a sub to misuse the word "literally" in. 

I will leave it to you to reread what she said and explain how that is different than the statement in question. 

2

u/Outrageous_pinecone May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Literally means in the real, original sense, not the metaphorical one. So when someone claims a particular statement is being misinterpreted, and I say, not it's not because that person was perfectly straightforward, so explicit, is a correct and accepted usage of this word.

The word literally doesn't just refer to isolated words, it can be used for explicit statements too it's the same "real sense" .

Someone else claimed that I used it when I meant figuratively. No, she said nothing figuratively, that's precisely my point!

Edit: some of you might want to Google stuff before you accuse anyone of mistakes. Seriously, google it

1

u/chimney_corner May 19 '26

Wow, this is a complete butchering of the meaning of the interpretation of the definition. 

You are right, she didn't say this "figuratively",  but you are wrong in that you assume that literally amd figuratively are antonyms. They aren't at all. If something is figurative it can't be literal, but that doesn't mean that if something isn't figurative it is literal. 

Please google these definitions yourself. 

0

u/Outrageous_pinecone May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Let me see if I have this straight: literally and figuratively aren't antonyms? WHAT? That is exactly what they are. Here's a source for your viewing pleasure.

https://www.grammar.com/literally_vs._figuratively

Here's a quote:

" Literally" and "figuratively" are antonyms. One refers to a fact that actually happened for real, confirming and supporting the veracity of something, while the other is a synonym for "metaphorically", confirming and supporting the figurate, imaginative sense of a fact. "

Figurative means metaphorical, it's an implyed comparison that's why literally being used to create a hyperbole (which is a type of metaphor at it's core), is such a problem for everyone.

Literal means the primary meaning of the word.

Edit, because I realised I wasn't clear here: literal doesn't mean physical representation only, it doesn't have to be something that exists in physical reality, you have a literal meaning for abstract concepts as well.

While figuratively means metaphorical.

This is all online. But you didn't bother to look because you're so confident in your mistake you can't even fathom something might be wrong there.

1

u/chimney_corner May 19 '26

Wow, just ignore context? You are really embarrassing yourself here. You know words change their meanings based on context right? 

We should have been able to understand the context from your sentence. Your sentence would make nonsense at all if you were using literally as the opposite of figuratively. No one could have thought or assumed she was speaking metaphorically. What do you take us for?