Human-Led Constraint Authorship in Machine-Assisted Creation

A case study in restraint, refusal, and human judgment

Context

Most discussions of AI-assisted creative work focus on capability: what systems can generate, how quickly they can iterate, and how convincingly they can imitate human expression. Far less attention is paid to authorship—specifically, how creative authority is maintained once generation becomes abundant and persuasive.

This case study documents a working practice across narrative writing, visual storytelling, and site design in which AI is used as a bounded creative instrument rather than an autonomous or co-equal author. Constraint, refusal, and stopping rules function as primary creative acts, rather than output volume or technical novelty.

The purpose of this study is not to propose a universal framework, but to make one collaboration model legible: a human-led approach in which judgment precedes generation, limits are established before form emerges, and authorship remains an active responsibility rather than a retrospective claim.

Role Definition: Human and System

Within this practice, authorship is not shared evenly between human and system. Roles are defined asymmetrically and in advance.

The human retains sole responsibility for authorship, including narrative intent, ethical boundaries, visual framing, and the decision to stop. The human determines what may exist, what must not exist, and when further generation would constitute excess rather than refinement.

The AI system functions as a bounded creative instrument. It is used to explore variation within constraints set in advance. It does not initiate direction, determine meaning, or resolve ambiguity. All outputs are provisional and subject to refusal.

This division of roles is practical rather than philosophical. Without clear authority, generation accelerates and authorship becomes retrospective. By defining roles before work begins, responsibility remains explicit throughout. In this model, refusal is not a failure state. It is evidence that authorship is functioning.

Example: Une Femme Nue dans un Jardin

This image emerged within a narrative context that required intimacy without performance and presence without invitation. The subject matter—female nudity in a shared outdoor space—posed immediate ethical risks common to both traditional and AI-assisted visual work, particularly the tendency toward eroticization, idealization, or viewer-centered framing.

A female-gaze perspective was therefore treated not as an aesthetic goal, but as a structural requirement. The image needed to privilege mutual presence over display, and interiority over spectacle.

Before any generation occurred, several constraints were established:

• The image would not be composed for an external gaze.
• Bodies would not be posed or presented as objects of display.
• Sexualized lighting, emphasis, or dramatization would be disallowed.
• The scene would privilege mutual presence over individual exposure.
• The viewer would not be positioned as a participant within the space.

During generation, outputs that introduced cues associated with performance—direct eye contact with the viewer, exaggerated bodily emphasis, heightened contrast, or cinematic dramatization—were rejected immediately. These refusals were not based on quality, but on violation of intent.

The final image was accepted not because it resolved ambiguity, but because it preserved it. The women depicted are engaged with each other rather than the frame. Their bodies are contextual rather than highlighted. The environment is present without functioning as metaphor or spectacle.

Importantly, the image was not refined beyond the point where it satisfied the initial constraints. Further iteration risked aesthetic escalation without contributing meaning. The decision to stop was treated as an authorial act rather than a technical limitation.

This example illustrates how restraint operates as a generative condition rather than a limitation. The image exists because certain outcomes were actively prevented, not because a system was allowed to pursue maximum expression.

Constraint as Architecture

In this practice, constraints are defined in advance and treated as structural components of the work rather than corrective measures applied after generation.

Constraints operate across narrative scope, visual framing, ethical boundaries, and stopping conditions. Their purpose is not to restrict possibility, but to prevent escalation—particularly the amplification of clarity, drama, or appeal beyond what the work requires.

By establishing constraints early, generation occurs only within defined bounds. The human functions as architect of permissible space rather than selector of outputs. Constraint is operational rather than aesthetic, determining which outcomes are categorically disallowed regardless of technical quality.

Effectiveness is measured not by output volume, but by the consistency with which boundaries are maintained across iterations.

Failure and Refusal Patterns

Refusal is an expected outcome within this system.

Common refusal patterns include outputs that:

• reposition the viewer as participant
• introduce performative cues
• escalate emphasis without narrative justification
• resolve necessary ambiguity
• shift authority from subject to frame

These outputs indicate boundary violations rather than technical issues.

Refusal patterns are tracked through repetition. When violations recur, constraints are adjusted to prevent them. A high refusal rate is not treated as inefficiency, but as evidence that the system is operating within clearly defined limits.

Conclusion: Limits and Responsibility

This case study does not propose a general solution to authorship in machine-assisted creation. It records one working approach in which limits are defined in advance and responsibility remains explicit throughout.

As generative systems increase in capability, the burden on human judgment does not decrease. It becomes more precise. Decisions about what should not exist, when to stop, and where authority resides are structural rather than secondary concerns.

Within this practice, constraint is not a restriction on creativity. It is the condition under which authorship remains legible—and responsibility remains real.