Hong Kong Author To Kei-chung's Literary Experiment: Distinguishing Human Life Practice from AI
Hong Kong author To Kei-chung uses AI collaboration in his latest novel to explore the fundamental differences between human-authored literature and AI-generated text, emphasizing the irreplaceable role of lived experience.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: June 11, 2026 at 13:24
- 🔍 Collected: June 11, 2026 at 13:46 (22 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: June 13, 2026 at 05:49 (40h 2m after Collected)
Does the emergence of AI affect literary creation? Hong Kong author To Kei-chung's latest novel, 'The Origin of Species: Beibei Reborn – The Vanished Possible World,' features 30,000 words co-written with AI out of a total of 270,000. He states that this experiment aims to distinguish human individual life practice from AI.
To Kei-chung responded in writing to a reporter from Central News Agency, saying, 'I am not embracing AI; I am merely conducting an experiment with it. Aside from this experiment, I have never used AI in my creative process, including preparation or text generation. I do not oppose others using AI, but I currently have no need to. Unless I find another compelling reason where AI can achieve a specific creative intent, I have no motivation to replace handwriting with AI.'
To acknowledges that 'AI has the ability to produce moving works,' but questions, 'Is there love in them? If we don’t know a piece is AI-generated and are moved by it, what does that emotion mean? Under Turing test conditions, “love” and “heart” cannot be verified.'
Returning to the essence of language, if we treat it merely as a symbolic system and judge the output solely by technical skill, AI-generated language is entirely valid—and far more efficient and higher in quality than human output. In that case, AI replacing humans is logical. However, To argues, 'Language is not a symbolic system, nor is it the result of computation.'
AI-generated language, he says, belongs neither to the world of life nor to any form of life. It is merely a function, lacking a subject capable of communication or meaning-making. Simply put, AI language 'has function but no meaning.' Meaning arises from the linguistic practice of experiential individuals, and literary creation is the purest and most representative form of such practice.
Furthermore, To notes that while AI can produce language that appears meaningful and is indistinguishable from human writing, from the perspective of practice, AI has neither experience nor individuality. It cannot establish communicative relationships with other individuals through language. He emphasizes, 'AI lacks life not because it is a machine, but because it cannot enter the realm of experience.'
The aspect of literature that cannot be replaced, To asserts, is not the technical product but the individual as a practitioner of life—both author and reader. He believes 'AI’s emergence reminds us that literature should shift its focus from the work to the act of practice itself. The literary community, composed of practitioners (authors and readers), is not a consumer market for works/books, nor an application scenario for functional language. This is what AI cannot imitate or replace. It is a retro, yet most radical and revolutionary view.'
To Kei-chung responded in writing to a reporter from Central News Agency, saying, 'I am not embracing AI; I am merely conducting an experiment with it. Aside from this experiment, I have never used AI in my creative process, including preparation or text generation. I do not oppose others using AI, but I currently have no need to. Unless I find another compelling reason where AI can achieve a specific creative intent, I have no motivation to replace handwriting with AI.'
To acknowledges that 'AI has the ability to produce moving works,' but questions, 'Is there love in them? If we don’t know a piece is AI-generated and are moved by it, what does that emotion mean? Under Turing test conditions, “love” and “heart” cannot be verified.'
Returning to the essence of language, if we treat it merely as a symbolic system and judge the output solely by technical skill, AI-generated language is entirely valid—and far more efficient and higher in quality than human output. In that case, AI replacing humans is logical. However, To argues, 'Language is not a symbolic system, nor is it the result of computation.'
AI-generated language, he says, belongs neither to the world of life nor to any form of life. It is merely a function, lacking a subject capable of communication or meaning-making. Simply put, AI language 'has function but no meaning.' Meaning arises from the linguistic practice of experiential individuals, and literary creation is the purest and most representative form of such practice.
Furthermore, To notes that while AI can produce language that appears meaningful and is indistinguishable from human writing, from the perspective of practice, AI has neither experience nor individuality. It cannot establish communicative relationships with other individuals through language. He emphasizes, 'AI lacks life not because it is a machine, but because it cannot enter the realm of experience.'
The aspect of literature that cannot be replaced, To asserts, is not the technical product but the individual as a practitioner of life—both author and reader. He believes 'AI’s emergence reminds us that literature should shift its focus from the work to the act of practice itself. The literary community, composed of practitioners (authors and readers), is not a consumer market for works/books, nor an application scenario for functional language. This is what AI cannot imitate or replace. It is a retro, yet most radical and revolutionary view.'
FAQ
Which part of the novel was written by AI?
The author states 30,000 out of 270,000 words were AI-assisted, but specific sections are not disclosed.
Where can I buy this novel?
Available in major bookstores in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and online. Japanese translation status unknown.
Will To Kei-chung use AI in future works?
He currently has no plans, unless a clear creative purpose justifies it.