{"id":703,"date":"2025-05-11T16:17:53","date_gmt":"2025-05-11T19:17:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marconivieira.com.br\/?p=703"},"modified":"2025-05-11T16:22:33","modified_gmt":"2025-05-11T19:22:33","slug":"who-is-the-author-after-all","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marconivieira.com.br\/index.php\/2025\/05\/11\/who-is-the-author-after-all\/","title":{"rendered":"Who Is the Author, After All?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Marconi Fabio Vieira, PMP\u00ae<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

AI, Word, and the Modern Paradox of Human Authorship<\/strong><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u2014 capable of writing, summarizing, and even suggesting ideas \u2014 a new question emerges behind academic and editorial scenes:<\/p>\n

Who is the author, after all?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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<\/em> human \u2014 or assisted, in some way, by AI.<\/p>\n

But does that make us less of an author? Or are we facing a modern paradox<\/strong>, where the ethics of authorship lie not in the tool, but in the awareness and integrity of the one who writes<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Tools do not replace authors<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    So why does generative AI cause discomfort<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

    Perhaps because it seems \u201ctoo intelligent.\u201d Yet at the end of the day, it\u2019s just another tool<\/strong> \u2014 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. There is no such thing as a completely original creation<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      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 \u2014 for those who believe \u2014 inspiration we\u2019ve received from the Spirit.<\/p>\n

      As the wise one said in Ecclesiastes: \u201cThere is nothing new under the sun\u201d<\/em> (Ecclesiastes 1:9).<\/p>\n

      True authorship is not about inventing from nothing, but about interpreting, rearranging, and illuminating with authenticity what has already been entrusted to us<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. A fictional \u2014 but very real \u2014 scenario<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        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.<\/p>\n

        To streamline the process, he uses AI to test introductions, improve flow, and eliminate redundancies \u2014 no different than using Word to align margins or fix grammar.<\/p>\n

        The result is a solid, coherent, ethical, and highly relevant article.<\/p>\n

        But when attempting to submit it to a publication, he finds this notice:
        \n\u201cWe do not accept content written or edited using artificial intelligence. All submissions must be 100% human-generated.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

        The real question is: Is this content less human simply because a modern tool helped shape its form?<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Or are we confusing technical mediation<\/em> with ethical authorship<\/em>?<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The line between authorship and mediation has always existed<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          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.<\/p>\n

          The truth is: authorship is not lost by the use of tools \u2014 it\u2019s lost when there\u2019s no awareness, purpose, or accountability.<\/strong><\/p>\n

          The author is the one who:<\/p>\n