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
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)
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
>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
Seems pretty reasonable!
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?
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/...
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!
Cool, I also use AI as a tool.
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.
Kinda interesting that more boomers embrace AI than zoomers.
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?
[dead]
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."
If you use an AI to generate all your work, then are you the genius or is the AI?
If you use a power saw to cut the boards to build your house, did you really build your own house?
Nobody in this story used an AI to generate their work, and there's not much confusion about who the genius is in it.
You haven't noticed this, you just want it to be true because it makes you feel good.
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.
Like aphyr?
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.
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.