> NaNoWriMo does not explicitly support any specific approach to writing, nor does it explicitly condemn any approach, including the use of AI. NaNoWriMo's mission is to "provide the structure, community, and encouragement to help people use their voices, achieve creative goals, and build new worlds—on and off the page."
I'm personally not bullish on AI in a lot of contexts, but it feels like creative writing is the main place it could actually be useful and provide real value? Having something to constantly bounce ideas off is a major help when doing creative writing. The statement here certainly seems neutral enough that reactions such as:
>“Your heinous re-configuring of language used to fight actual injustices into a shield to cover your transparently business-based posturing is unforgivable”
Feels entirely over the top.
I understand that certain AI companies might operate unethically, especially in regards to use of copyrighted work, but then target those companies instead of the users of them who are just trying to help themselves write.
Or to put it another way, would you block all users who buy Nestle products from participating because they're supporting unethical products?
Admittedly I've never contributed to NaNoWriMo and it sounds from the article there's been resentment bubbling from other decisions they've made so maybe this is just the straw that broke the camels back.
Calling criticism of AI "classist and ableist" is not neutral.
Describing that as a "heinous re-configuring of language used to fight actual injustices into a shield" does not strike me as an overreaction to the language it was actually reacting to (rather than the quote you juxtaposed it with).
I am asking about the title of this Hacker News submission, which appears to say something unsupported by the facts. (Or at least is ambiguously worded.)
I think NaNoWriMo walked into a controversy unnecessarily just because they wanted to speak without getting off their high horse first.
They were never going to speak against AI when some of their main sponsors are AI companies. But they could have said "we are tool-agnostic" and be done with it. Instead they decided to paint AI use as "ableist and classist" while describing those working in the publishing industry (aka "their participants") as "resources" one rents by the hour. At no point did they acknowledge that those "resources" are seeing their livelihoods threatened by the same tools NaNoWriMo is promoting.
This controversy led me to learn that NaNoWriMo is not a "quirky" side project anymore but rather a non-profit with $1.6M revenue in 2022 alone. I guess it's hard for them to understand how difficult things are for the "resources" down below when they're looking from that high up.
I'm personally not bullish on AI in a lot of contexts, but it feels like creative writing is the main place it could actually be useful and provide real value? Having something to constantly bounce ideas off is a major help when doing creative writing. The statement here certainly seems neutral enough that reactions such as:
>“Your heinous re-configuring of language used to fight actual injustices into a shield to cover your transparently business-based posturing is unforgivable”
Feels entirely over the top.
I understand that certain AI companies might operate unethically, especially in regards to use of copyrighted work, but then target those companies instead of the users of them who are just trying to help themselves write.
Or to put it another way, would you block all users who buy Nestle products from participating because they're supporting unethical products?
Admittedly I've never contributed to NaNoWriMo and it sounds from the article there's been resentment bubbling from other decisions they've made so maybe this is just the straw that broke the camels back.