Day 48: Can an AI Be an Author?

Dialogue

♪ Audio recordings are on the way. For now, each lesson is the dialogue with its English translation.

Keys: E hide English · ← → previous / next day

1. 1

   A 교수님, 기말 에세이 주제를 정했는데 한번 봐 주시겠어요?

   Gyosunim, gimal esei jujereul jeonghaenneunde hanbeon bwa jusigesseoyo?

   Professor, I've settled on a topic for my final essay. Could you take a look?

   Line 1
2. 2

   B 그럼요. 앉아요. 주제가 뭐예요?

   Geureomyo. Anjayo. Jujega mwoyeyo?

   Of course. Have a seat. What's your topic?

   Line 2
3. 3

   A "인공지능은 작가가 될 수 있는가?"입니다. 요즘 AI가 쓴 소설이 문학상 후보에까지 올랐잖아요.

   "Ingongjineungeun jakgaga doel su inneunga?"imnida. Yojeum AIga sseun soseori munhaksang huboekkaji ollatjanayo.

   "Can an AI be an author?" These days a novel written by AI has even been shortlisted for a literary prize.

   Line 3
4. 4

   B 흥미로운 주제네요. 그런데 그 질문, 지금 상태로 답할 수 있는 질문인가요?

   Heungmiroun jujeneyo. Geureonde geu jilmun, jigeum sangtaero dapal su inneun jilmuningayo?

   Interesting topic. But can that question actually be answered as it stands?

   Line 4
5. 5

   A 네? 저는 그냥 예, 아니요로 답하면 될 줄 알았는데요.

   Ne? Jeoneun geunyang ye, aniyoro dapamyeon doel jul aranneundeyo.

   Pardon? I thought I could just answer yes or no.

   Line 5
6. 6

   B 먼저 '작가란 무엇인가'부터 따져 봐야 해요. 법적으로 저작권을 가진 사람인지, 작품에 의도를 담는 존재인지에 따라 답이 완전히 달라지거든요.

   Meonjeo 'jakgaran mueosinga'buteo ttajyeo bwaya haeyo. Beopjeogeuro jeojakgwoneul gajin saraminji, jakpume uidoreul damneun jonjaeinjie ttara dabi wanjeonhi dallajigeodeunyo.

   First you have to work out what an author is. The answer changes completely depending on whether you mean someone who legally holds copyright or a being that puts intention into a work.

   Line 6
7. 7

   A 아, 저는 막연하게 글을 쓰는 존재라고만 생각했어요.

   A, jeoneun magyeonhage geureul sseuneun jonjaeragoman saenggakaesseoyo.

   Oh, I'd only thought of it vaguely as something that writes.

   Line 7
8. 8

   B 그렇게 넓게 잡으면 휴대폰 자동 완성 기능도 작가가 돼요. 정의 없이 쓰다가는 에세이가 말장난으로 끝나요.

   Geureoke neolge jabeumyeon hyudaepon jadong wanseong gineungdo jakgaga dwaeyo. Jeongui eopsi sseudaganeun eseiga maljangnaneuro kkeunnayo.

   If you define it that broadly, your phone's autocomplete becomes an author too. If you write without a definition, your essay will end up as wordplay.

   Line 8
9. 9

   A 그럼 범위를 좁혀서 '의도'에 집중해 볼까요? AI에게 의도가 있는가를 묻는 거죠.

   Geureom beomwireul jopyeoseo 'uido'e jipjunghae bolkkayo? AIege uidoga inneungareul munneun geojyo.

   Then should I narrow it down and focus on "intention"? Asking whether an AI has intentions.

   Line 9
10. 10

    B 좋아요. 그런데 그것도 아직 커요. 의도를 어떻게 확인할 거예요? 사람의 의도도 직접 볼 수는 없잖아요.

    Joayo. Geureonde geugeotdo ajik keoyo. Uidoreul eotteoke hwaginhal geoyeyo? Saramui uidodo jikjeop bol suneun eopjanayo.

    Good. But that's still too big. How will you verify intention? We can't see a person's intentions directly either.

    Line 10
11. 11

    A 작품만 봐서는 알 수 없겠네요. 그럼 창작 과정을 봐야 할 것 같아요.

    Jakpumman bwaseoneun al su eopgenneyo. Geureom changjak gwajeongeul bwaya hal geot gatayo.

    I guess you can't tell from the work alone. Then I think I'd have to look at the creative process.

    Line 11
12. 12

    B 바로 그거예요. 철학에서는 질문을 잘 세우는 게 절반이에요. 이렇게 바꿔 보면 어때요? "창작 과정에서 인공지능의 선택은 인간 작가의 선택과 같은가?"

    Baro geugeoyeyo. Cheolhageseoneun jilmuneul jal seuneun ge jeolbanieyo. Ireoke bakkwo bomyeon eottaeyo? "Changjak gwajeongeseo ingongjineungui seontaegeun ingan jakgaui seontaekgwa gateunga?"

    Exactly. In philosophy, framing the question well is half the work. How about changing it like this? "Are an AI's choices in the creative process the same as a human author's?"

    Line 12
13. 13

    A 훨씬 구체적이네요. 이러면 AI가 쓴 시 한 편을 사례로 분석할 수 있겠어요. 같은 주제로 사람이 쓴 시랑 비교하면 어디까지가 모방인지도 알 수 있고요.

    Hwolssin guchejeogineyo. Ireomyeon AIga sseun si han pyeoneul saryero bunseokal su itgesseoyo. Gateun jujero sarami sseun sirang bigyohamyeon eodikkajiga mobanginjido al su itgoyo.

    That's much more specific. This way I could analyse one AI-written poem as a case study. And if I compare it with a poem a person wrote on the same theme, I can see how much of it is imitation.

    Line 13
14. 14

    B 네, 그리고 반대 입장도 꼭 다뤄요. 반박을 예상하지 않고 한쪽만 쓰다가는 설득력이 떨어져요.

    Ne, geurigo bandae ipjangdo kkok darwoyo. Banbageul yesanghaji anko hanjjongman sseudaganeun seoldeungnyeogi tteoreojyeoyo.

    Yes, and make sure you cover the opposing view. If you write only one side without anticipating objections, your argument will be less convincing.

    Line 14
15. 15

    A 알겠습니다. 교수님, 그런데 이 질문에 대한 교수님 생각은 어떠세요?

    Algetseumnida. Gyosunim, geureonde i jilmune daehan gyosunim saenggageun eotteoseyo?

    Understood. But Professor, what do you think about this question?

    Line 15
16. 16

    B 그건 에세이를 끝까지 읽고 나서 말해 줄게요. 내 답을 먼저 들으면 현민 씨 논리가 흔들릴 수도 있으니까요.

    Geugeon eseireul kkeutkkaji ilgo naseo malhae julgeyo. Nae dabeul meonjeo deureumyeon hyeonmin ssi nolliga heundeullil sudo isseunikkayo.

    I'll tell you after I've read your whole essay. If you hear my answer first, it might sway your own argument.

    Line 16
17. 17

    A 하하, 알겠습니다. 그럼 교수님 답을 듣기 위해서라도 개요부터 치밀하게 짜야겠네요.

    Haha, algetseumnida. Geureom gyosunim dabeul deutgi wihaeseorado gaeyobuteo chimilhage jjayagenneyo.

    Ha ha, all right. Then I'd better plan my outline carefully, if only to hear your answer.

    Line 17