So, Nanwrimo has officially crapped the bed and tapped into everything that is wrong with where we seem to be headed as a society. They produced a statement on AI that argues that it is ableist and classist not to support AI in writing. “Not all brains have [sic] same abilities and not all writers function at the same level of education or proficiency in the language in which they are writing,” the organizers write in the “Ableism” section. “Some brains and ability levels require outside help or accommodations to achieve certain goals.” While I understand the concept of nuance in argument, I believe such a blanket statement does damage to the very idea of writing as a profession and especially as an art. Daniel Jose Older had a more direct argument:
Hello @NaNoWriMo this is me DJO officially stepping down from your Writers Board and urging every writer I know to do the same. Never use my name in your promo again in fact never say my name at all and never email me again. Thanks!
This response sums up quite a bit of the responses from published authors. While I understand the use of AI as a tool in writing–especially in terms of easy access to research, no one is fooled by what writers (or supposed writers) are asking for when they ask to use AI. Well, almost no one. I asked chatGPT to weigh in on the argument. It told me this:
NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) has a policy on AI use that emphasizes the importance of human creativity and effort in the writing process. The organization encourages participants to focus on producing original work through their own creativity rather than relying on AI-generated content. They state that while AI tools can be used for inspiration or as a starting point, the bulk of the writing should come from the author themselves.
The policy likely reflects concerns about the integrity of the challenge, which is designed to push writers to develop their own skills and ideas by writing 50,000 words in a month. Using AI to generate large portions of a manuscript would defeat the purpose of this personal and creative challenge.
In response to such a policy, one might argue that while AI can be a useful tool for brainstorming or overcoming writer’s block, it’s important to maintain the spirit of the challenge by ensuring that the final product is genuinely the author’s work. Balancing the use of AI with the creative effort expected in NaNoWriMo is crucial to preserving the integrity of the event.
However, the statements on AI I’ve read from nano argue that this is not the case and in some areas encourage AI use. They write, ““’Winning’ is a personal achievement and has always been based on the honor system! If using AI will assist your creative process, you are welcome to use it,” adding, “Using ChatGPT to write your entire novel would defeat the purpose of the challenge, though.”
Herein lies the problem with adding the term ableism to your argument. To quote the aforementioned chatbot, “Ableism is discrimination, prejudice, or social prejudice against people with disabilities or those who are perceived to have disabilities. It manifests in various forms, including negative stereotypes, biased attitudes, and systemic barriers that disadvantage individuals with disabilities. Ableism can occur at both individual and institutional levels, leading to exclusion, marginalization, and the unequal treatment of people with disabilities.”
Is an inability to conjure amazing works of fiction now a disability? Perhaps we need to stop treating those with ability as somehow being part of a class of people who have prejudice and start treating those with talent as people we can look to as Icons. I’m not mad at Stephen King because he is an amazing storyteller. I don’t find myself marginalized because I haven’t published as many books as him or thousands of other authors or even that my abilities are not at that level. The unequal treatment I receive is justified, because his stuff is better. The exclusion–the no’s I’ve received from his publisher specifically is justified because his stuff is better. That is okay. That is not ableist. There are some arenas in which better is simply better. We don’t water down our sports competitions because some players are better than others. It is extremely rare to see rules created to make it so other players are on par with the stars.
I’d love to rant more, but ten is ten, and I’m done here.