Fanning the Flames of the NaNoWriMo AI Debate (Odd Socks #20)
Fanning the Flames of the NaNoWriMo AI Debate (Odd Socks #20)
One writer taking sides in a bubbling AI dilemma... and more
Welcome to Odd Socks Issue #20
I write about stuff that interests me, puts a smile on my face, or could use some clarity amidst the noise. Each issue includes two original articles plus bonus sections. Enjoy!
If not already a subscriber, please consider signing up and get this free periodic newsletter in your inbox.
Fanning the Flames of The NaNoWriMo AI Debate
The AI debate continues to be… interesting. Those of us who dabble/play/publish in creative mediums have a guarded view of the new Elephant dancing in the Room. Many extol the coming AI integration akin to the launching of the Internet (only on a massive dose of steroids).
I’m somewhere in the middle, leaning toward wanting to protect creative human efforts, but enjoying the AI-assist helping hand here and there. It’s not like AI is something new: It’s been in our GPS devices, smartphones and such, for a long time. Order something online? AI plays a role in that workflow and the logic behind offering you add-on options. Unfortunately, it also plays the creepy half-cousin after you’ve researched or checked out a product or service, then nagged for days with targeted ads. Shiver.
A recent New York Times article from September 6 discussed the kerfuffle at famed NaNoWriMo regarding the decision by the nonprofit organization NOT to stand a stand against AI:
It started with a statement from NaNoWriMo, the nonprofit organization that coordinates the writing marathon every year. It ended — though perhaps there is more to come — with resignations, a lost sponsor and plenty of prickly feelings in what is meant to be an uplifting community.
The irony of the NaNoWriMo organizers’ decision flies against their About statement (emphasis is mine):
NaNoWriMo is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that believes in the transformational power of creativity. We provide the structure, community, and encouragement to help people use their voices, achieve creative goals, and build new worlds—on and off the page.
To me, the outrage is justified. The NaNo challenge runs the month of November for participants to write a 50,000 word novel and is all about human creativity and persistence. The reason NaNo exists is to encourage “…people [to] use their voices, achieve creative goals…” not craft a 200-character prompt in an AI program and wait for the finished novel to appear (or even use AI for any part of this challenge process, IMHO).
To be upset about an entity doing or taking a stand you think is wrong is usually the first activism step. To personally, and actively, tell others of your feelings is step two. And finally, step three is usually boycotting said company and product to draw more attention to what one perceives is an injustice.
When refusing to buy and encourage others not to for a product or service from a company whose moral compass is broken, is refusing income to that entity. Enough people do the same and the impact on their bottom line and reputation cannot only get the message across, but perform an ad hoc miracle to possibly reverse their egregious stance.
NaNoWriMo? It’s a free service, so not quite the same impact in protesting against them. Yet they are highly visible in the creative writing word. Hopefully, this kerfuffle becomes more widely known among writers, published authors, and wannabes to get more people thinking about the AI creative works issue.
Myself? In writing this post I’m taking the anti-NaNoWriMo stand for this year (perhaps longer). As a seven-campaign NaNo veteran, I’m not without experience there, with two completed 50k-words novels among the seven staycations. (nota bene: “completed” doesn’t mean published: one was/is so bad I feel I should list it in my will to be destroyed when I pass on, while the other is in later edit stages and may get published at some point).
AI itself (or at least one version of it) infers why NaNoWriMo should stand against AI in creative written work via one NYT article’s commenter:
So no one thinks me a hypocrite, I’m not anti-AI universally. That image at the right in my opening photo? I made it using an AI prompt (and yes, I know AI is not a visual robot doing the writing, but it gets the “replace human” impact of AI across). I use ProWritingAid to check my writing, a fully AI-enabled utility, and as mentioned before, all the other myriad of “fringe” AI things that help our life.
But I, as many I know, draw a line in the proverbial sand for AI replacing copyrightable creative works, whether written, drawn, or painted. The value of human creativity is not just for those on the receiving end, but is an intrinsic human freedom to create with all the physical, metaphysical, and soul-satisfying benefits derived from the process.
Nota bene: The right side of the image above is not something I support doing (using AI images in my work) for one simple reason: like this one, it’s artwork lifted from some artist with attribution impossible to the source (nor any path to a license). I debated using it, but wanted to do so to emphasize the threat to creatives when AI provides unauthorized (and potentially copyrighted) material. Apologies for getting distracted before publishing and omitted this statement in the original release. The siren song of AI is nearly irresistible, but clearly needs regulation..
Odd Socks: a free, periodic newsletter written by Gary Varner. Subscribe for fresh, emailed new releases. Product links (when they appear) are affiliates, but don’t affect your purchase price yet help support Odd Socks.
Need some cool stationery stuff, like Blackwing pencils, Field Notes? Then stop reading this and visit my shop: Notegeist.