Oh no NaNoWriMo...

Although at least finding infinite
monkeys who can type requires some effort.

Am I totally stepping in it by saying I'm kind of on the side that says that maybe generative AI shouldn't be used for writing? Although I suppose I'd have to have some kind of credibility for anyone to care what I think. Huh, it's actually quite freeing. Ok, I'll say it: using ChatGPT to write your novel for you is kind of like cheating. It's the algorithmic equivalent of infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters. But here, let me dither: maybe it's ok? In some, really specific circumstances? The reason I bring this up is NaNoWriMo, and the awkwardly contracted contest's recent decision to allow generative AI.

Why? Ethics. Oh, and I suppose the
environmental impact of all those servers.

So what's the haps? I'll tell you the haps. The haps is that the organization put out a statement saying that condemning generative AI in writing is ableist and privileged, a move that hit a nerve, leading four of their board members to quit in disgust. That nerve being that people who write for a living, and are feeling increasingly threatened by AI. A concern that feels pretty valid. Why hire someone to write copy when a robot can do it for you and for free? Same with visual artists, voice actors, regular actors, so in a lot of way, AI is coming for us. 

Except for people who already make money using computers for some reason, like, say, those who play the stock market. I personally think we should program an AI to run Wall Street and just give it the directive to do so in such a way that everybody makes exactly as much money as they need.

Seriously, enough with the gibberish poems and nightmare art where
everyone has extra fingers. Turn AI loose on these guys' jobs.

Why yes, I did beat Ninja Garden without
using a Game Genie, thanks for asking.

But is it ableist? To condemn generative AI in writing, that is. Maybe? I don't know. God, am I about to defend generative AI? NaNoWriMo's statement made the case that not everybody has the same cognitive abilities and this kind of AI assistance can help them reach their writing goals. And since the organization's goal is about encouraging people to write rather than to win a competition, there's not really a conflict here. An analogy might be if someone plays a video game on easy mode or cheats. If we're not talking about professional gaming, where's the harm? Does someone save scumming their way through Ninja Garden really affect your enjoyment of the game? 

Pictured: rich people seen here celebrating
their incredible literary success afforded
them by to their ability to pay editors.

Less persuasive to me is their argument that condemning AI is classist. They're saying that there are those who don't have the financial resources necessary to pay for feedback and editing, which isn't an angle I'd considered, nor is it one I'm sure I buy. I don't really know all the things AI is used for, but AI that gives feedback doesn't sound like the same thing as generative AI. And when it comes to editing, that seems like something you need if you're planning on publishing, and since editing is also a skill we're again talking about using AI to do the work for you.

Did you know that 30% of books published in
the U.S. are written by Brian Sanderson?

(source: nonsense)

Their third point is about access, and how underrepresented voices don't have the same opportunities when it comes to publishing contracts. I'm not in the publishing industry, nor am I underrepresented in it, but I mean that tracks. I work at a bookstore where we specifically feature underrepresented voices because of how the overwhelming majority of published writers are straight white men. So if AI can help, great. But how? They bring up access up as an issue, but are fuzzy on how AI will addresses inequities in publishing. 

One could type the word shuttlecock 50,000
times and technically complete the challenge.

The National Novel Writing Month challenge based on length, not quality. It's about getting people to write and that's super. And if folks need something like generative AI to get them there, who am I to judge. I think where the organization looses me however is the suggestion that someone who questions the use of AI in writing is guilting of ablism, and classism when really I think they're raising some really valid concerns about things like the ethics of writers passing AI off as one's own work, or straight up replacing writers with software. 

I mean, I can't play the piano, but if I booked a show where you all showed up to watch me sit in front of a baby grand while a classical Spotify playlist blares at you over the sound system, you'd think it was kind of a dick move on my part, right?

Incidentally, what are you doing tomorrow?