Was AI used?
That fact alone is not enough. Technical participation, access to a model or the presence of generated prose does not establish Symbiotic Authorship.
Institutional research
A relation, not a percentage.
MIELOGOS exists within an emerging field of AI-related literary recognition. Its distinction is deliberately narrower than a claim to have invented AI-assisted writing, human–machine collaboration or literary competitions involving AI.
The distinction
AI use is not enough.
MIELOGOS asks what kind of creative relationship produced the work.
AI-assisted, AI-generated, human–AI collaborative and symbiotic authorship may overlap, but they are not interchangeable categories. Eligibility under MIELOGOS depends on the operative Symbiotic Authorship framework in the governing Prize documents.
How much AI?
MIELOGOS does not use an AI-percentage threshold. Quantity is not a substitute for the nature of the creative relation.
What changed because of the interaction?
The relevant question is whether human and artificial activity materially conditioned the developing work while an identifiable human authorial locus remained.
Qualified institutional priority
To our knowledge.
To our knowledge, MIELOGOS is the first literary prize dedicated specifically to works qualifying under a formal definition of symbiotic authorship.
This is a qualified institutional-priority claim, not a claim that MIELOGOS invented human–AI creative collaboration, AI-assisted writing, the language of symbiosis, or AI literary competitions.
Research cut-off: 7 October 2026.
Evidence discipline
The claim remains open to evidence.
The prior-art review considers direct AI-literature competitions, adjacent literary institutions, human–AI creativity contests, process-based initiatives, computational co-creativity and scholarship using collaborative or symbiotic language.
Failure to identify an earlier equivalent is not proof that none exists. If credible evidence establishes an earlier literary prize using a substantially equivalent relational eligibility test, MIELOGOS should correct or withdraw the historical-priority claim rather than redefine the evidence.
The institutional definition of MIELOGOS does not depend on retaining a first-in-history claim.
The purpose of the distinction is not to be first.
The purpose is to be precise.
This page is a public positioning summary. The Founding Master, Terms of Entry, Cycle Notice, Entrant Guide and Privacy Notice remain controlling within their respective functions.