As a disabled author, i found the section on ableism just a little insulting. We are perfectly capable of putting in the work to write our own projects without ripping from AI. Ableism is a very real issue that people like me have to deal with on a daily basis and I really don't appreciate that term being used in that manner. There's already a believe in society that disabled people are stupid, lazy and generally incapable and things like this don't help
I read the perfect comment on this topic, it said ‘why should I be bothered to read something you couldn’t even be bothered to write’. And that really sums it up. It’s the antithesis of art.
Such staggering bullshit. As someone who got inspired by nano a few years back, I can now see how much the entire thing has changed for the worse. And what a genuine shame! Nano was supposed to be about encouraging folks to find our voices, and here they are actually encouraging our voices to be colonized by AI tools (both meanings of that word). I just wrote about this recently, so maybe it's in the air or water. Ain't nothin wrong with going against the rules of grammar, and I have never found an AI model that respects a human's right and ability to play with language. And THAT is what nano should really be about. Putting the fun back into writing.
I'm glad you made the sensible choice. I've loved NaNoWriMo but you hit the nail on the head: Using terms and concerns with real weight on serious social issues to attack people whose livelihood and purpose is threatened by blurring the lines between Human-Created Content and AI-Created Content is wildly inappropriate. Credtent.org has Content Origin definitions that should be used to disclose if you're using AI in your work. Like buying organic fruit, it's appropriate to know what went into the creation of what you consume.
I saw the ProWrtingAid lecture on using AI for editing and was put off by that. I know AI has helped some writers in certain applications but for me, it’s a no. Even for editing, a person knows my intention, protects my work, and gives me the feedback I need.
It’s really weird that a an organization that is built off the words of people would take this stance. Then there’s also the idea that if they get ahead of it, maybe they can control it. Not sure it’ll work that way, especially in industries where companies are trying NOT to pay writers.
Thanks for this -- it’s upsetting and I admire you standing up for your principles -- I’m one of those guys who disagree with you on AI in general ( I suspect it will turn into a useful tool eventually) but I am shocked by this over-politicization of literature -- if AI is praised for helping those who can’t write (here it’s minorities, but in practice it’s anyone who can’t write and has nothing to say but wants to be a writer without learning how first), that implies that literary quality or human expression or meaning of any kind are no longer the purpose of literature, rather, it’s all about quantity, marketplace and ultimately profit margins for publishers. Thanks.
Wow-- I'm very proud of you for speaking out and taking a stand by resigning.
As a seasoned college English instructor who teaches all types of writing, I find AI/Chat GPT abhorrent. It's everywhere now, so students can't help but use it and so will never experience writing, thinking, the thrill of creative expression. AI takes away their opportunity to gain confidence as writers-- and trust their own ideas. For online literature and film classes, many students don't even bother reading the book or watching the films; it's very obvious they're plugging the prompts into ChatGPT which spits out perfect grammar in soulless, as you say, bad prose. It's sad, frustrating, and will lead to my early retirement.
I really, really love "NaNoHellNo." I've never participated in the novel writing effort, largely because I'm a working mom and need to carve out writing time in the middle of the night or in the car or random hours of the day whenever I can, rather than a single month. So while I cannot comment on the experience of "NaNoWriMo" I can say their statement struck me as profoundly disingenous and cognitively ludicrous. It really redefines the concept of mental gymnastics.
I’m a little confused by this. I took part in Nanowrimo a couple of times, about 20 years ago, so maybe my understanding is a little out of date. My understanding was that it was solely a word-count exercise, encouraging writers to write by giving them a word target over a set time period.
You didn’t have to share the actual content of what you were writing, only submit your word count.
What would be the point of using AI to generate content for you in this context? You’d be cheating no one except yourself. The idea seems the very definition of pointless.
"What did so and so wear during the 17th century?"
Chat GPT: long description of what so and so did, what his official garb looked like, where he worked, and for who he worked, without me having to fight my way through googles top 10 stupid choices.
As a disabled author, i found the section on ableism just a little insulting. We are perfectly capable of putting in the work to write our own projects without ripping from AI. Ableism is a very real issue that people like me have to deal with on a daily basis and I really don't appreciate that term being used in that manner. There's already a believe in society that disabled people are stupid, lazy and generally incapable and things like this don't help
Exactly. Thank you. the curbing of that language was so deeply disturbing.
'ChatGPT, please draft me a 50,000 word story on love and loss. Thanks.'
'Chat GPT, please revise draft for coherence and streamline it a little.'
Wow, NaNoWriMo really went fast this year! What am I going to do with the other 29 days, 23 hours, and 45 minutes of it?
Also I really wonder what my script is about.
Maybe I should read it.
LOL exactly!
The only entities that want to read AI-written novels are other AI.
Even for them it corrupts their learning. Literally nobody wants to read AI writing
Just ask ChatGPT to give you a summary.
Of course! Why bother reading.
I read the perfect comment on this topic, it said ‘why should I be bothered to read something you couldn’t even be bothered to write’. And that really sums it up. It’s the antithesis of art.
It’d almost like they used AI to revise the statement…
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT THEY DID
Such staggering bullshit. As someone who got inspired by nano a few years back, I can now see how much the entire thing has changed for the worse. And what a genuine shame! Nano was supposed to be about encouraging folks to find our voices, and here they are actually encouraging our voices to be colonized by AI tools (both meanings of that word). I just wrote about this recently, so maybe it's in the air or water. Ain't nothin wrong with going against the rules of grammar, and I have never found an AI model that respects a human's right and ability to play with language. And THAT is what nano should really be about. Putting the fun back into writing.
TOTALLY! All of this
I'm glad you made the sensible choice. I've loved NaNoWriMo but you hit the nail on the head: Using terms and concerns with real weight on serious social issues to attack people whose livelihood and purpose is threatened by blurring the lines between Human-Created Content and AI-Created Content is wildly inappropriate. Credtent.org has Content Origin definitions that should be used to disclose if you're using AI in your work. Like buying organic fruit, it's appropriate to know what went into the creation of what you consume.
I saw the ProWrtingAid lecture on using AI for editing and was put off by that. I know AI has helped some writers in certain applications but for me, it’s a no. Even for editing, a person knows my intention, protects my work, and gives me the feedback I need.
It’s really weird that a an organization that is built off the words of people would take this stance. Then there’s also the idea that if they get ahead of it, maybe they can control it. Not sure it’ll work that way, especially in industries where companies are trying NOT to pay writers.
Especially because the whole point of Nano is to NOT edit, just write. Super wild.
Thanks for this -- it’s upsetting and I admire you standing up for your principles -- I’m one of those guys who disagree with you on AI in general ( I suspect it will turn into a useful tool eventually) but I am shocked by this over-politicization of literature -- if AI is praised for helping those who can’t write (here it’s minorities, but in practice it’s anyone who can’t write and has nothing to say but wants to be a writer without learning how first), that implies that literary quality or human expression or meaning of any kind are no longer the purpose of literature, rather, it’s all about quantity, marketplace and ultimately profit margins for publishers. Thanks.
also the idea that people with access to ChatGPT etc are primarily the underprivileged minorities is totally wild.
like — it's EXPENSIVE for one thing! They totally neglect to mention that
Haha -absolutely
Wow-- I'm very proud of you for speaking out and taking a stand by resigning.
As a seasoned college English instructor who teaches all types of writing, I find AI/Chat GPT abhorrent. It's everywhere now, so students can't help but use it and so will never experience writing, thinking, the thrill of creative expression. AI takes away their opportunity to gain confidence as writers-- and trust their own ideas. For online literature and film classes, many students don't even bother reading the book or watching the films; it's very obvious they're plugging the prompts into ChatGPT which spits out perfect grammar in soulless, as you say, bad prose. It's sad, frustrating, and will lead to my early retirement.
oh god that's awful! I'm so sorry. I hope you find some way to get around it all and reach them.
NaNo. I will use my own words thank you.
So well said. We have to be clear what is actual soul/heart expressed writing, and what is a production line...
I really, really love "NaNoHellNo." I've never participated in the novel writing effort, largely because I'm a working mom and need to carve out writing time in the middle of the night or in the car or random hours of the day whenever I can, rather than a single month. So while I cannot comment on the experience of "NaNoWriMo" I can say their statement struck me as profoundly disingenous and cognitively ludicrous. It really redefines the concept of mental gymnastics.
Also, for anyone who would like to have their experience with, or thoughts about, genAI, taken into consideration, a fellow Substack author and I are running an informal study on genAI's impact of creative professionals. Link is here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfQw3pfqX0gM4fmPsTMz8_3FZX88wsBAfcJYY6ODVkQmDf3hg/viewform
thank you so much!
I’m a little confused by this. I took part in Nanowrimo a couple of times, about 20 years ago, so maybe my understanding is a little out of date. My understanding was that it was solely a word-count exercise, encouraging writers to write by giving them a word target over a set time period.
You didn’t have to share the actual content of what you were writing, only submit your word count.
What would be the point of using AI to generate content for you in this context? You’d be cheating no one except yourself. The idea seems the very definition of pointless.
Good for you! We’ve started our own QueerWriM on our queer writers discord cause fuck that shit.
Right now, the only good use of ChatGpt is:
"What did so and so wear during the 17th century?"
Chat GPT: long description of what so and so did, what his official garb looked like, where he worked, and for who he worked, without me having to fight my way through googles top 10 stupid choices.
Thank you for standup for your principles, and giving writers their voice to stand with you.
Absolutely craziness and no regard for the integrity of real issues..Yes, business as usual.