The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the publishing industry was a focal point at the recent Frankfurt Book Fair, particularly concerning its effects on literary translation. Research presented in the Czech pavilion, where Czechia served as this year's Guest of Honor, shed light on how publishing professionals perceive AI, with particular emphasis on the anxieties of literary translators regarding their future.

Read More

During a session on October 7 titled "AI in Translation and Publishing Practice," moderated by Anna Luňáková, panelists included Francesca Novajra, president of the European Council of Literary Translators’ Associations (CEATL), and researchers Jiřina Šmejkalová from Charles University and Lenka Pořízková from Palacký University. The discussion highlighted a complex landscape where AI can enhance efficiency yet raises concerns over job security and quality in literary translations.

Examining data from CEATL's 2026 survey of 1,785 respondents, more than 77% expressed a pessimistic view about generative AI's role in their field, with 37% considering leaving the profession due to its influence. Key reasons cited included fewer assignments and decreasing income attributed to AI. Interestingly, around 70% of translators reported having explored or used AI tools in their work, predominantly for research, but they drew a distinction between these uses and fully relying on AI for literary translations.

About 30% reported a reduction in assignments, tying this trend to the growing presence of AI. The phenomenon of “post-editing,” which involves revising machine-generated translations, further complicated the landscape, as many translators who accepted such roles noted reduced pay compared to traditional human translations. Novajra emphasized the need for translation to convey the author's intent and stylistic nuances, arguing that an approach merely settling for "good enough" compromises the integrity of the work.

Research from Czechia painted a somewhat different picture. The HumanAId survey, conducted from February to April 2026, involved 142 responses across various publishing roles, though it included few literary translators. Šmejkalová noted that while nearly 90% viewed time efficiency as a critical motivator for using AI, the technology's application was more prevalent in editorial support tasks than in core editorial functions. Marketing and design professionals generally embraced AI more positively, while editors and proofreaders expressed skepticism.

Age dynamics also influenced perspectives on AI adoption. While younger respondents often felt pressure to use AI, older, more experienced professionals tended to assess its impact more favorably. The research suggested a need for balance between the efficiency gains from AI and preserving creativity and quality in publishing.

Panels discussing AI's implications highlighted a tension between speed and content quality. At a session titled "AI in Culture: ‘Truth or Fiction?", panelists including Ricardo Almeida and Miha Kovač examined how AI could enhance creative participation in a rapidly changing informational landscape. Almeida noted that AI allows for faster content creation, potentially leading to higher quality outputs when applied correctly, while Kovač stressed the ongoing importance of human oversight to ensure depth in literature.

The discussion also addressed significant issues like copyright, diversity, and the responsibility of publishers to shape the AI dialogue responsibly. With Kovač warning that reliance on English-based AI systems could homogenize linguistic expression, others highlighted the need to ensure that the diversity of voices in literature is preserved amid technological advancements.

Future discussions will likely continue to explore the delicate balance between leveraging AI for operational efficiency and maintaining the unique value provided by human creativity and judgment in publishing.