A literary controversy has reignited a broader debate about authenticity in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Canadian-Haitian writer Thélyson Orélien stands accused of using AI to write his novel C’était ça ou mourir, a work praised by critics upon its release. The novelist denies the allegations, but the affair has become symptomatic of an era in which doubt is settling in everywhere.
A Scandal Shaking the Literary World
The allegations against Orélien, published by Grasset, have disrupted France’s literary season. At the center of the controversy is Pangram, an AI-detection tool whose reliability remains contested. Yet beyond the specifics of the case, the episode speaks to a deepening public suspicion: that the words we read—and the messages we receive—may not have been written by a human at all.
Doubt Infiltrates Daily Life
Concerns about AI are hardly new. Teachers have long grappled with chatbot-written essays, and some individuals have turned to AI in place of a therapist. But these anxieties are now intruding into increasingly intimate corners of daily existence. Being on guard for signs of generative AI—associated with a perceived lack of sincerity—has become commonplace.
“I sometimes, and more and more regularly, find myself questioning the authenticity of a piece of writing,” Alrick, a man in his thirties launching a hypnotherapy practice, told HuffPost. He recalled recently asking friends and family for feedback on a logo and website. “Against all expectations, one of the responses looked curiously like AI content.” Though he admits to occasionally using such tools “in a very limited way,” the episode left him unsettled. “What matters more to me is the opinion of people I know and care about, rather than AI’s.”
Suspicion on Dating Apps and Marketplaces
Weeks earlier, a Reddit user questioned the nature of her exchanges with a suitor on a dating app. “It looks like a ready-made thing,” she worried, sharing screenshots. The man’s opening message closely resembled text a chatbot might generate based on her profile. Other users were unequivocal: “No doubt, it’s 100% AI.” The telltale signs included questions at the end of each message offering an A or B choice—”Got a spot to recommend, or are you keeping your secrets?”—a hallmark of ChatGPT.
Elsewhere on the platform, users expressed astonishment at how a potential buyer communicated on Leboncoin, or suspicion after a student received congratulations from his father about his thesis. In some cases, the mere use of formal language renders a message doubtful. One user asked: “My son was invited to a friend’s birthday and I messaged his mother to ask if a comic book would make a good gift. We agree her response was written by AI, right?” The phrase—”That’s a very good idea and he would surely love it very much”—convinced him a chatbot was involved. Commenters, however, were unconvinced. “She just sounds polite,” one wrote. “Some people express themselves formally, so it’s not that shocking.”
The Search for Authenticity
Olivier Duris, a psychologist specializing in relationships with screens, said he has not observed generalized anxiety among his patients about AI use in the private sphere. Still, he finds the discussions surrounding Orélien’s book telling. “If the affair is making so much noise, it’s because the subject matters,” he said. “It shows there is a heightened public search for something sincere and honest”—the opposite of what AI offers.
When creation relies on AI, “we feel we’re being taken for fools because the result isn’t based on a genuine artistic process,” Duris said. “Many would prefer a drawing made by a human rather than one made by AI, even if it’s ‘beautiful.'”
In private contexts, AI can sometimes prove useful, the psychologist acknowledged, noting it can “break down certain barriers for people who lack the means to write in a socially valued way.” This is hardly new, he added, pointing to templates for administrative letters or messages for every occasion readily available online.
AI and a Capitalist Logic
“I don’t think we can criticize AI as such, but rather the fact that it is integrated into a capitalist mode of thinking that shapes what it is becoming,” Duris argued. “That is, a tool for maximizing profits at the expense of humans and quality.” AI, he said, favors “sanitized,” generic content.
Could this become a new norm? In a somewhat dystopian evolution, the language and habits of certain chatbots already appear to influence their users. “AI detection tools will soon flag what humans do ‘just as well’ as AI,” Duris quipped.
In the dating app case, the user did not rule out that “the guy uses ChatGPT so much that he talks the same way.” The question staring back at us from our screens—”AI or not AI?”—seems destined for a long life yet.
