<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Creation on Bifurcations</title><link>https://bifurcations.org/en/tags/creation/</link><description>Recent content in Creation on Bifurcations</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-CA</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://bifurcations.org/en/tags/creation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>A Candide Without Voltaire?</title><link>https://bifurcations.org/en/texts/a-candide-without-voltaire/</link><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://bifurcations.org/en/texts/a-candide-without-voltaire/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;With artificial intelligence, a work can become far more elaborate than its creator’s own resources might lead us to expect. That possibility forces us to reconsider what works tell us about their authors—and how we distribute merit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The controversy surrounding Thélyson Orélien’s &lt;em&gt;C’était ça ou mourir&lt;/em&gt; raises a question that reaches beyond this novel: what does a work establish about the person who signs it? This question extends an earlier reflection here on access to writing with AI.&lt;sup id="fnref:1"&gt;&lt;a href="#fn:1" class="footnote-ref" role="doc-noteref"&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>