By Marconi Fabio Vieira, PMP®
AI, Word, and the Modern Paradox of Human Authorship
Introduction
We live in an era where the boundaries between tool and authorship are being tested like never before. With the rise of generative artificial intelligence — capable of writing, summarizing, and even suggesting ideas — a new question emerges behind academic and editorial scenes:
Who is the author, after all?
It’s no longer just a matter of writing well or thinking deeply. Now, one must also justify whether the hand that wrote was entirely human — or assisted, in some way, by AI.
But does that make us less of an author? Or are we facing a modern paradox, where the ethics of authorship lie not in the tool, but in the awareness and integrity of the one who writes?
- Tools do not replace authors
Since the first quill touched parchment, writers have relied on tools. In the 21st century, no one questions the legitimacy of using Microsoft Word, Google Docs, or an automatic spell checker. Even more advanced tools like machine translation, formatting assistants, and grammar checkers are widely accepted.
So why does generative AI cause discomfort?
Perhaps because it seems “too intelligent.” Yet at the end of the day, it’s just another tool — one that organizes words based on patterns, while the one who determines purpose, selects topics, filters content and gives meaning is always the human author.
- There is no such thing as a completely original creation
The idea of purely original authorship is, at best, naive. All of us write from within a living web of ideas: books we’ve read, courses we’ve taken, conversations we’ve had, and — for those who believe — inspiration we’ve received from the Spirit.
As the wise one said in Ecclesiastes: “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
True authorship is not about inventing from nothing, but about interpreting, rearranging, and illuminating with authenticity what has already been entrusted to us.
- A fictional — but very real — scenario
Imagine an experienced author, with years of work in technology and governance, who decides to write an article on the challenges of generative AI in corporate processes. He structures the content, defines the sections, builds arguments based on established frameworks, applies practical insights, and carefully revises every section.
To streamline the process, he uses AI to test introductions, improve flow, and eliminate redundancies — no different than using Word to align margins or fix grammar.
The result is a solid, coherent, ethical, and highly relevant article.
But when attempting to submit it to a publication, he finds this notice:
“We do not accept content written or edited using artificial intelligence. All submissions must be 100% human-generated.”
The real question is: Is this content less human simply because a modern tool helped shape its form?
Or are we confusing technical mediation with ethical authorship?
- The line between authorship and mediation has always existed
If we accept that any use of a tool disqualifies authorship, then we should also reject texts typed in Word, translated with DeepL, edited by human proofreaders, or based on sources found through Google.
The truth is: authorship is not lost by the use of tools — it’s lost when there’s no awareness, purpose, or accountability.
The author is the one who:
- Decides what to say;
- Takes responsibility for what is said;
- Filters content ethically and spiritually;
- And delivers something purposeful to the world.
- The problem is not AI — it’s unconscious use
Using AI is not wrong. What’s wrong is:
- Copy-pasting content without understanding;
- Replacing deep thought with automated text;
- Claiming authorship with no reflection.
On the other hand, using AI as a tool for creative amplification, with intention, revision, and ownership — that is not just acceptable, it is wise.
- Authorship is defined by motivation
When a Christian author sits down to write, their goal is not just “to create content.” It is to edify, to guide, to provoke reflection — or perhaps to glorify God through what they share.
In this sense, even when using modern tools, they are still 100% human authors and 100% stewards of the inspiration that drives them.
- The future will be hybrid — and ethical
To prohibit AI in the creative process is like, in the past, banning the use of computers for “true writers.”
Those who understand this early will be better prepared to embrace relevant, consistent, and insightful content — created by people who use technology with reverence, purpose, and discernment.
- Conclusion: What makes us authors before God and before men
You are the author when you:
- Take full responsibility for what you express;
- Seek truth with integrity;
- Use tools with wisdom, not pride;
- And deliver something to the world that bears your spiritual, intellectual, and ethical fingerprint.
AI does not take authorship away from you —
It simply reveals whether you truly know who is holding the pen.
And like any good work, it’s up to you to discern:
- When to use it,
- When not to,
- And most importantly: for whom you are writing, and why.
Citation of this article:
Who Is the Author, After All?
APA:
Vieira, M. F. (2025, May 9). Who Is the Author, After All?. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15376877
ABNT:
VIEIRA, Marconi Fábio. Who Is the Author, After All?. Zenodo, 9 maio 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15376877. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15376877.
Deixe um comentário