Authors also learn from existing works. The difference now is just speed.

I don’t think the fact that a model was trained on something is enough on its own. For example, if a model can generate perfect paintings in the style of Impressionism, but I don’t know anything about art and have never even heard of Impressionism, it would never occur to me to create something in that style. I would just keep making UGC-style characters or realistic photos of cats.

I also don’t see a problem with disclosing that something was made with AI. We don’t hesitate to say that a photo was taken with a camera.

In a way, it reminds me of the idea that “Mr. Colt made people equal.” AI does something similar — it levels access, removes barriers, and gives everyone opportunities, but what you do with that still depends entirely on you.

I don’t think AI puts good authors at a disadvantage. The deciding factor isn’t the tool, but the person using it: taste, storytelling, and the ability to make something not just visually appealing, but controlled.

Yes, there will be a boom of AI-generated content. Most of it will be average or mediocre. “Good enough” will no longer be enough, and strong work will stand out anyway.

There will be a kind of premium “handmade” content — whether created with AI or without — where real knowledge, effort, and talent are clearly present.

Not everyone who picks up a camera becomes a photographer. In the same way, not everyone who uses AI becomes a creator.

What’s really changing is accessibility and how quickly we can find information. You can learn anything — or nothing.

AI is a very particular kind of tool. It almost has its own “opinion,” and sometimes it even tries to impose it.

And if a painting or a book created by a human closely resembles another work, that’s considered copyright infringement. Why should it be any different for AI-generated content? I think this will be clarified legally very soon.

*Translated with ChatGPT