The fact is she didn't actually use AI, so this is hypothetical.
> The companies are making the AI creative
None have managed to at the level we are talking about. There is also some skill involved in the use of AI. If she somehow made AI operate on a level far beyond the status quo, that would be an achievement. She didn't so its moot, but if she did it would be an accomplishment.
> jak fantastycznie powiększa on horyzonty i pogłębia myślenie kreatywne
> how incredibly it widens horizons and deepens creative thinking
AI doesn't have the ability to improve one's creative thinking. In order to improve, you have to practice - there's nothing more to it and it applies to all professions.
Also, I wonder how did she come to the conclusion that it does so.
She uses the AI for a job that should be hers, not the AI's.
Furthermore, she publicly stated she bought the highest plan without specifying the model.
> None have managed to at the level we are talking about.
You seem to be implying somebody accused her of relying purely on AI, which no one actually did.
Many good Polish writers (as stated in the Lubimy Czytać article) said that for them it's unimaginable to use AI for writing, in any form.
> She uses the AI for a job that should be hers, not the AI's.
Also what would she otherwise buy the AI for? Cooking recipes? I'm on the free plan and hardly hit any limits.
She didn't ask it "what profession could person X be in an Y novel". She asked it to develop (rozwinąć) a story.
It's not that hard to understand that developing a story is actually her job.
Small details (profession, name, colours) are ok (my opinion). Developing parts of the story is not.
You may wonder where the line is - many reputable Polish writers are in consensus - no AI.
AI should have no place in creative works.
You are free to think otherwise. However I don't think those writers are wrong, especially if they're talking on a subject that is their profession, I'm no writer.
Try to stop calling people you disagree with a "religion". It's within reason to believe that AI can have a technically useful place in the creative process and it's within reason to believe that AI should not be anywhere in the creative process as a principled opinion.
Also, the framing of "winning the cultural debate" is telling. Typically this refers to what will happen, not what should happen. I.e. it's basically just saying, "I think what will happen is what I want to happen", not an actual argument for why you want it. It's a red flag that you are arguing from a tribalistic position (or "religious", you could say).
Whoah, hold up: I am arguing with someone who does not believe it's within reason to think AI can have a technically useful place in the creative process. That's why I'm choosing the words I am.
> The prospects of making a living in the midlist are unbelievably bad, and getting worse.
Sure, but it's not an excuse for making the world a shittier place by publishing more AI content. It's very known that AIs have agreement bias and mostly agree with you.
44% of new music uploaded to Deezer is AI generated.
Also she said 4 years ago that "literature is not for idiots". I don't think calling people names is a good way of promoting your content. And now she's complaining that the amount of people reading her works is declining?
Furthermore, she accused academic teachers of narrow thinking (apparently calling people 'idiots' wasn't enough). Honestly, Andrzej Dragan works [1] are arguably more important, but who am I to judge?
> The companies are making the AI creative
None have managed to at the level we are talking about. There is also some skill involved in the use of AI. If she somehow made AI operate on a level far beyond the status quo, that would be an achievement. She didn't so its moot, but if she did it would be an accomplishment.