As artificial intelligence becomes more integrated into writing practices, the debate over authorship has intensified. The issue is not whether an AI has touched the text, but who decides, who makes the decision, and who answers for what is written. According to one report, the Prix des Deux Magots jury took a firm position against works co-written with an AI, emphasizing the authorship of the work and the value of the writing gesture. A few weeks earlier, Haruki Murakami emphasized what, in his view, still separates the novelist from a machine: the ability to produce the unexpected. The real problem, according to some, lies not in the use of AI but in the practice of asking a machine to produce almost an entire text, reading it superficially, and then publishing it under a human name while maintaining the idea that this name is its sole origin. This practice, some argue, encourages a literature of yield: produce more, faster, at lower cost, in an already saturated text environment. However, another perspective suggests that using AI not to avoid writing but to make writing more difficult—by having it find the weakness in an argument or defend the opposite position—can be a more productive approach. Nicolas, creator of Atypikal Life, proposes a more nuanced path. Rather than directly opposing human writing and AI, he questions transparency, responsibility, and what the author chooses—or refuses—to delegate. At Atypikal Life, an AI named Céline has an explicitly identified editorial role, writing certain texts under its own publication name and dialoguing with the author's voice. This separation of voices seems more fertile than their clandestine fusion. Some authors, like Olivier Torres, who is the author of a first novel to be published in self-publishing, have used AI in their work. He spent 8 months producing his book, learning the principles of narration, writing the outline by hand, creating all the characters and their arcs, and teaching his voice to the AI. The AI drafted the scenes based on this content, and he rewrote over it, deleting language tics that were not his. He argues that while he may not be a traditional writer, the book corresponds 100% to what he wanted to produce. However, others, like Edco, argue that AI is not the solution and that using it can lead to scattering under various influences and not following one's own idea. He suggests that AI serves nothing and that it is not the time to add to the current state of the Earth with such tools. Additionally, Edco points out the environmental impact of AI and the potential for intellectual manipulation. The debate continues, with some advocating for increased transparency and higher requirements for the author, asking not just "Have you used an AI?" but "What have you refused to give it?" This question highlights the importance of the process rather than just the final product.