Artprice Founder Thierry Ehrmann Argues for Author Control Over AI Writing

Thierry Ehrmann, the founder of Artprice, has entered the argument over AI and writing with a book and a claim about authorship. In a statement issued on October 26, he argues that an author can direct an AI-assisted work while remaining responsible for its meaning. His example is Dialogue Between a Thinker and AI, a freely available text whose method he describes as human direction combined with AI writing.

It is a useful case because Ehrmann makes the division of labor explicit. He says he conceived the work, directed the dialogue, revised it and rejected proposals, while the prose was generated with AI, subject to stated exceptions for quotations and archival material. That description gives readers something more precise to discuss than the broad phrase “AI-assisted.”

Who makes the decisions

Ehrmann’s case rests on the idea that authorship includes decisions about direction, selection and revision. A writer may ask for alternatives, test an objection or change a chapter’s structure, then choose which results to keep. On that account, the work is shaped by a continuing sequence of judgments rather than by a single instruction at the beginning.

There is a real distinction between that process and accepting a machine’s first answer. Anyone who has worked through successive drafts knows how much a refusal can matter. But the distinction also raises a question: how much of the language, argument and structure came from the author, and how much was supplied by the system? A general statement that AI was used may not tell a reader enough.

Ehrmann’s description is unusually direct on that point. Readers can agree or disagree with his account of authorship, but they know the terms on which he presents the work. A publisher could offer the same clarity without forcing every book into an identical disclosure. A short note might explain whether a system was used for research, editing, translation or generating passages, and who checked the result.

The editor still has a job

The claim that AI can help writers develop work without waiting for a publisher is plausible. A writer with limited resources can try an outline or ask for criticism at any hour. That access may make some kinds of experimentation easier. It does not automatically make the resulting manuscript accurate, distinctive or ready to publish.

An editor contributes more than a series of suggested sentences. An editor can recognize a weak argument, ask for evidence, understand the intended readership and take responsibility for the relationship with an author. Those judgments can be contested, of course. A writer may reject an edit or find that a publisher’s expectations pull the work away from its purpose.

This is where disclosure helps the editorial relationship as well as the reader. If a manuscript contains generated prose, an editor needs to know what was produced, what was checked and what rights questions remain. A writer deserves clear terms too: a publisher’s policy on accepting AI-assisted work should be available before an author submits a manuscript.

Freedom carries obligations

Ehrmann presents AI as a tool for creative freedom and emphasizes the author’s responsibility for what is published. That responsibility has a practical side. A system can produce a convincing citation that does not exist or flatten a complicated source into a confident sentence. The author and publisher must verify claims against the material itself, particularly when a book asks readers to trust its research.

There are questions beyond the individual manuscript. Authors and artists have raised concerns about the material used to train models and the effect of generated work on their livelihoods. An author choosing a tool cannot settle those disputes alone. Nor does an account of one writer’s experience establish that every publisher or prize should adopt the same rules.

The most useful part of Ehrmann’s intervention is its invitation to examine the actual work and the choices behind it. AI can change the way a manuscript is made. Readers still need to know whose judgment they are being asked to trust.