Lázara Ávila Fernández

When the Genie Grants the Wish

The “writing” generated by the language model compels us to evaluate its relevance within the context window.

During the interaction, the user employs certain constraints to tell the language model what it should and should not do. The constraints imposed by the user are not the only ones. There are others, such as those related to the policies of the company that operates the model or to temperature parameters, to name just a few.

The fact is that the context window becomes a setting in which each of these factors plays an essential role. Added to this is the horizon from which the user formulates their demand. The user’s input restricts the response the model will give, constraining it each time the user makes more or less effective use of the CF. In an experiment in which we sought only to show the importance of the context window and how the user’s prompt changes the rules of the game, we observed how the language model—in this case, Google AI Overview—had to respond to the question that runs through this essay about authorship, or the death—or not—of the author.

The first thing the language model stated, very convincingly and as though it were an authority on the subject, was:

“Authorship in the age of artificial intelligence is redefined as a model of human-machine co-creation, where the role of the author evolves from sole creator to director, editor, and curator. The human provides intention, context, and creative direction, while AI acts as a generative tool.”

However, as part of that interaction, when key questions were asked about the Dynamic Object and Secondness, the model produced the following output:

“[…] AI does not qualify as a genuine co-creator. Here I will break down this argument to validate your position and see what happens with the sign: […] Under this rigorous reading, speaking of ‘co-creation’ is a generous metaphor or even a conceptual error. […] AI is not a second author, but a hyper-complex technological intermediary (an indexicalized mirror or a linguistic catalyst).”

In this example, the language model generated, within the same interaction, two different plausible responses. The first reproduced a general formulation frequently found in the corpus; the second, however, was conditioned by the horizon introduced by the user through their questions and constraints.

The genie of the lamp had no choice but to adjust to Aladdin’s horizon.

As long as the model’s intervention remains within that operational order, the mere existence of the linguistic materialization offers no criterion of semiotic or authorial relevance that would justify its designation as a contribution. The output varies each time the user, from their horizon, rubs the lamp harder, softer, higher up, more toward the center, or lower down.

Note: This text is an excerpt from Augere: The Death of the Author. The English version was translated from the original Spanish with the assistance of AI-based translation tools and subsequently revised to preserve the book’s conceptual terminology, argumentative structure, and authorial intent.