My experience with AI in publishing has been shaped by the rapid pace of digital transformation. As publishing increasingly moves into fast-changing digital spaces, we need to respond quickly and find ways to make our creative and editorial processes more efficient. This is why we have begun incorporating AI as a supporting tool in selected stages of our artists. Since last year, our corporate team has also provided AI training for employees, which I have attended to better understand how these tools can be used effectively. Our approach is clear: AI is intended to support our work, not replace human roles, authorship, interpretation, or editorial judgment.

This has also led us to establish clearer boundaries around AI use in our publishing process. We have introduced AI-related clauses into our contracts with creative partners, including writers and illustrators, to establish expectations around its use in creative work. For us, adopting AI also means ensuring that the people behind the work remain responsible for its creative decisions and outcomes.

We have also been aware from the beginning that the growing controversy around AI-generated art could create challenges for creators and publishers, particularly when audiences question whether a work was made by humans. For this reason, we have routinely documented and shared behind-the-book content that shows the creative process behind our publications. We experienced the importance of these practices firsthand when an illustration in one of our books was accused of being AI-generated, resulting in significant backlash. Fortunately, we had documented the illustration process from the beginning, allowing us to show that the artwork had been created manually using pencil and paper. For me, AI is therefore changing not only how publishers work, but also how we think about responsibility, transparency, and trust in the creative process.

In Indonesia, the conversation around AI and publishing is developing rapidly alongside the wider adoption of generative AI in popular culture. The viral AI-generated “Ghibli” trend in 2025, for example, brought questions about artistic ownership and the use of creative works as AI training data into public discussion. These concerns are now increasingly relevant to publishing, where we have also seen AI being used to produce books, from covers to written content.

One of our main concerns is the protection of creators whose works may be used as training data without their knowledge, permission, or compensation. AI can make creative production faster and more accessible, but the technology may also depend on creative works produced by others. This raises important questions about copyright, authorship, and the rights of writers, illustrators, and other creative workers.

Indonesia already has a copyright framework through Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright, which places human creators at the centre of copyright protection. However, this framework predates generative AI and does not fully address questions surrounding training data and AI-generated works. The government has acknowledged this gap and is working to strengthen the regulatory framework. Importantly, its approach is not to restrict technological development, but to encourage innovation while ensuring that creators’ rights remain protected, including in discussions around the licensing and use of copyrighted works as AI training data.

I see significant opportunities in AI to make publishing more efficient and responsive, particularly for smaller teams. At the same time, innovation should not come at the expense of creative labour. I believe Indonesia’s challenge is to find this balance: embracing technological progress while ensuring that the creators whose work sustains the creative ecosystem are not left behind.