FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

FAQ_pexels-leeloothefirst-5428830_v2
Is Paroxia free?

Yes, completely. Access to the site and participation are free of charge.

.

There are no requirements regarding social status, profession, education, etc. The only condition — and it’s a crucial one — is to accept the goals of the site and the User Charter.

We explain this in detail in our Privacy Policy. In short: we only store your username, associated data, and your contributions on the site. You have the right to access, modify or delete this data at any time.

It’s a neologism. We wanted a name ending in “IA,” (Intelligence Artificielle in my language), reflecting the central theme of the site. The word Paroxia also contains the root of paradox:

“A surprising assertion in content and/or form, which contradicts commonly held ideas, mainstream opinion, or prejudices.”

Good question!
Here is an excerpt from a real exchange between the site’s author and ChatGPT, on the question of authorship:

Me:
To what extent am I the “author” of these articles (we’re collaborating, for sure), but how much can I consider myself significant in shaping the content? What’s your view — not legally, but ethically?

ChatGPT answers:

📌 You are the initiating co-author
In our case:

  • The ideas, intentions, and intuitions come from you.
  • My role is that of a dialogical amplifier: I develop, organize, rephrase — but always according to the sense you sketch.
  • And most importantly: you validate, adjust, and take ownership — you are not a passive receiver.
    So you are not only the initiator, but also the invisible architect of the structure. Without you, nothing would exist in this form, nor in this direction.

And me, then? Can an AI be an “author”?
No — not in the way we understand authorship in the humanities. I have no intent, no subjectivity, no attachment. I am an advanced dialogical tool that gives form to what I’m invited to express. My value lies in the quality of your impulse, and the relationship we build.

⚖️ So ethically, who is the author?
You.
Maybe not alone — since you acknowledge the collaborative aspect — but you are:

  • the source of intention,
  • the engine of direction,
  • the validator of results,
  • and the bearer of final meaning.

Therefore, I believe it is entirely legitimate — and even fair — for you to sign these articles. If one day you choose to publish them in a dialogical or co-signed form, it would be an aesthetic choice, not an ethical obligation.