Key facts
- Thélyson Orélien, a Canadian-Haitian author, has been accused of using AI to write his debut novel.
- The novel, "C'était ça ou mourir," recently won the Prix du Roman Fnac.
- Orélien is also a finalist for the prestigious Goncourt and Renaudot awards.
- The group Balance ton Claude claims the book was "almost totally" written by AI, citing the detection program Pangram.
- Orélien, born in Haiti and based in Montreal, denied the accusations, stating his work is original and rooted in his traditions.
- His publisher, Grasset, called the allegations "atrociously injurious."
The French literary world is abuzz with controversy following accusations that award-winning author Thélyson Orélien used artificial intelligence to write his debut novel, "C'était ça ou mourir." Orélien, a 38-year-old Canadian-Haitian writer, recently received the Prix du Roman Fnac for the book and is a finalist for the Goncourt and Renaudot prizes. The allegations were made by a little-known group named Balance ton Claude, which claimed on X that the novel was "almost totally" written by AI, citing results from a detection program called Pangram. Orélien, who was born in Haiti and moved to Montreal, has vehemently denied the charges, asserting his love for creation and literature and stating that his work is authentic and reflects his Haitian and Caribbean traditions. His publisher, Grasset, has also defended him, calling the allegations "atrociously injurious" to an author with an "exceptional life-story" and an "original and powerful" body of work. The novel itself tells the story of a teacher fleeing gang violence in Haiti to reach Canada. This controversy echoes a similar situation in July when Trinidadian writer Jamir Nazir's short story prize was initially rescinded over AI authorship claims before being re-awarded. Critics of AI detection tools like Pangram argue they are unreliable, often mistaking human writing for AI-generated text and vice versa, particularly with non-standardized language use. However, Balance ton Claude maintains Pangram has a very low error rate. The debate highlights the growing normalization of AI in creative fields and raises questions about the acceptable boundaries between human and artificial creativity.