Ironically your "Relevant Content" today comes on the heels of the Russian misinformation campaign that likely includes AI involvement. Technology, uncontrolled, can be the enemy!
*AND* they’re pretending that opposing use of AI word-spittin’ engines is disability-unfriendly. Which is a crock.
They are being aggressive in their defense of the shitty practice, which seems to be sponsor-motivated. Bad cess to then, and I eagerly await their dissolution.
That whole classist/ableist argument has been debunked, flattened and left by the side of the road. This was and is a bad idea and I don’t know how the organization can recover from it.
This makes me unbelievably sad. My favorite part about NaNoWriMo has always been knowing that my efforts during those 30 days was part of a huge collection of activity, and I could feel the give and take of sharing in and feeding off that collective energy. I pictured thousands of other humans writing away, giving life to their ideas. Opposing the use of generative AI isn't "classist" or "ableist"--it's "humanist."
I asked AI if National Novel Writing Month should allow AI submissions. Even it's answer wasn't "yes". This is the answer I was given:
This is a complex question without a clear-cut answer. There are valid arguments on both sides to consider:
Arguments in favor of allowing AI-assisted submissions:
1. Evolving technology: AI writing tools are becoming increasingly prevalent and sophisticated. Allowing their use could help NaNoWriMo stay relevant in a changing technological landscape.
2. Accessibility: AI assistance might enable more people to participate, including those with disabilities or time constraints that make traditional writing challenging.
3. Focus on creativity: AI could potentially handle some of the more mechanical aspects of writing, allowing participants to focus more on creative elements like plot and character development.
4. Learning opportunity: Using AI tools could teach writers new techniques or expose them to different styles of writing.
Arguments against allowing AI-assisted submissions:
1. Authenticity concerns: NaNoWriMo is traditionally about human creativity and perseverance. AI assistance might be seen as diminishing the personal achievement aspect.
2. Fairness issues: Not all participants may have access to the same AI tools, potentially creating an uneven playing field.
3. Skill development: The challenge of writing 50,000 words in a month is partly about developing discipline and improving writing skills. AI assistance might reduce these benefits.
4. Difficulty in regulation: It could be challenging to define and enforce rules about acceptable levels of AI assistance.
5. Potential for misuse: There might be concerns about participants relying too heavily on AI, potentially to the point of plagiarism or producing work that isn't substantially their own.
Ultimately, the decision would depend on NaNoWriMo's core values and goals. If the primary aim is to encourage writing and creativity in any form, allowing AI assistance might align with that. However, if the focus is on developing traditional writing skills and achieving a purely human-created work, then restricting AI use would make more sense.
A middle ground could be to create separate categories for AI-assisted and non-AI works, allowing for both while maintaining a distinction. This could also provide interesting data on how AI impacts the writing process.
Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of this issue?
I'm with you, that AI today limits creativity. It's trained on what's already been written, for one. It doesn't really come up with anything new. We can imagine. I don't think AI can do that. It may be faster at recombining things that existed to make them appear as something new though.
Still, I'm with you when it comes to fiction writing.
I am not anti-AI everything. I do acknowledge that it can be a powerful tool but it will always feel like cheating to me when it comes to this kind of creative work.
And here is where I thank Mike for sharing this information with me yesterday. I really appreciate that, Mike. As you realize, I am always looking.
Ironically your "Relevant Content" today comes on the heels of the Russian misinformation campaign that likely includes AI involvement. Technology, uncontrolled, can be the enemy!
Yep. Working on something now. Fake content by any means just clogs the airways.
*AND* they’re pretending that opposing use of AI word-spittin’ engines is disability-unfriendly. Which is a crock.
They are being aggressive in their defense of the shitty practice, which seems to be sponsor-motivated. Bad cess to then, and I eagerly await their dissolution.
That whole classist/ableist argument has been debunked, flattened and left by the side of the road. This was and is a bad idea and I don’t know how the organization can recover from it.
This makes me unbelievably sad. My favorite part about NaNoWriMo has always been knowing that my efforts during those 30 days was part of a huge collection of activity, and I could feel the give and take of sharing in and feeding off that collective energy. I pictured thousands of other humans writing away, giving life to their ideas. Opposing the use of generative AI isn't "classist" or "ableist"--it's "humanist."
Precisely. I’ve done this a few times and felt the same. All these people are carving out time to really try. But not this year.
I asked AI if National Novel Writing Month should allow AI submissions. Even it's answer wasn't "yes". This is the answer I was given:
This is a complex question without a clear-cut answer. There are valid arguments on both sides to consider:
Arguments in favor of allowing AI-assisted submissions:
1. Evolving technology: AI writing tools are becoming increasingly prevalent and sophisticated. Allowing their use could help NaNoWriMo stay relevant in a changing technological landscape.
2. Accessibility: AI assistance might enable more people to participate, including those with disabilities or time constraints that make traditional writing challenging.
3. Focus on creativity: AI could potentially handle some of the more mechanical aspects of writing, allowing participants to focus more on creative elements like plot and character development.
4. Learning opportunity: Using AI tools could teach writers new techniques or expose them to different styles of writing.
Arguments against allowing AI-assisted submissions:
1. Authenticity concerns: NaNoWriMo is traditionally about human creativity and perseverance. AI assistance might be seen as diminishing the personal achievement aspect.
2. Fairness issues: Not all participants may have access to the same AI tools, potentially creating an uneven playing field.
3. Skill development: The challenge of writing 50,000 words in a month is partly about developing discipline and improving writing skills. AI assistance might reduce these benefits.
4. Difficulty in regulation: It could be challenging to define and enforce rules about acceptable levels of AI assistance.
5. Potential for misuse: There might be concerns about participants relying too heavily on AI, potentially to the point of plagiarism or producing work that isn't substantially their own.
Ultimately, the decision would depend on NaNoWriMo's core values and goals. If the primary aim is to encourage writing and creativity in any form, allowing AI assistance might align with that. However, if the focus is on developing traditional writing skills and achieving a purely human-created work, then restricting AI use would make more sense.
A middle ground could be to create separate categories for AI-assisted and non-AI works, allowing for both while maintaining a distinction. This could also provide interesting data on how AI impacts the writing process.
Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of this issue?
Ha. What a creative way to approach this. Still no, AI.
What do you think of the "middle ground" idea: AI-assisted and non-AI works as separate and distinct categories?
I think once you use technology in this kind of creative process, it’s no longer a creative process. So nah.
Sorry. I hit “reply” too soon. And how will one tell who used AI and who didn’t? Nope. Close the door and lock it.
I'm with you, that AI today limits creativity. It's trained on what's already been written, for one. It doesn't really come up with anything new. We can imagine. I don't think AI can do that. It may be faster at recombining things that existed to make them appear as something new though.
Still, I'm with you when it comes to fiction writing.
I am not anti-AI everything. I do acknowledge that it can be a powerful tool but it will always feel like cheating to me when it comes to this kind of creative work.