Over the last year or so it’s been harder and harder to avoid thinking about how artificial intelligence – “AI” – might impact the various aspects of my life. Not for nothing but there’s certainly a future where some variant of AI does most, if not all, of my lawyering job, so that’s been on my mind. More personally, how AI is going effect what people write and read, and the kind of music they make and listen to, is also something that is hard to keep off the brain. Now something’s popped up that really makes it impossible for me to avoid it.

Regular readers know that I’ve participated in National Novel Writing Month – NaNoWriMo – off and on for years. The idea is that you take the month of November, write about 1700 words a day, and by the end you have around 50,000 words, one threshold (at least) for a full-length novel. NaNoWriMo helped me develop the discipline to sit down and do that kind of long-form writing and several of my books started out as NaNoWriMo projects.

NaNoWriMo hasn’t had the best couple of years. Back in 2022 the organization paired up with an company called Inkitt that is, to put it mildly, a little suspicious. Then last year there were revelations that a child sex predator had been able to use the NaNoWriMo forums to seek out victims, leading to changes in how the site operated.

And now NaNoWriMo has waded into the debate on AI, doing so for apparently the most base of reasons – they have a new sponsor, ProWritingAid, which bills itself as an “AI-Powered Writing Assistant.” According to this (very positive) review, it’s more of an editing/feedback tool than the generative AI like ChatGPT we’ve come to think of as “AI,” so it doesn’t look like the kind of thing that is going to write a book for you, but help you do the actual work.

Which just makes NaNoWriMo’s recent declaration all the stranger. Last year and entry appeared in the site’s FAQ to answer the question “Am I allowed to use AI?” The answer makes perfect sense -there’s nothing to keep you from using AI during NaNoWriMo, but using something like ChatGPT “to write your entire novel would defeat the purpose of the challenge, though.” So far so good.

Then, more recently, another entry appeared asking “What is NaNoWriMo’s position on Artificial Intelligence (AI)?”. Initial squishiness about neither supporting nor condemning “any specific approach to writing,” gives way to a rejection of the “categorical” condemnation of AI, as such is classist, ablelist, and ignores “general access issues” (whatever that means).

Huh?

Depending on the definition of “AI” there certainly are technologies that could assist writers with various disabilities get their work written. Speech-to-text software involves some form of AI, broadly defined. Spell checkers are a friend to everyone. But is that really what they’re talking about? I doubt it, since those technologies have been around for years and nobody batted an eye. This can only be in reaction to thoughts on generative AI, right?

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll quote some of Chuck Wendig’s post on this, with the charming title of “NaNoWriMo Shits the Bed on Artificial Intelligence”:

The privileged viewpoint is the viewpoint in favor of generative AI. The intrusion of generative artificial intelligence into art and writing suits one group and one group only: the fucking tech companies that invented this pernicious, insidious shit. They very much want you to relinquish your power in creating art and telling stories to them and their software, none of which are essential or even useful in the process of telling stories or making art but that they really, really want you to believe are essential. It’s a lie, a scam, a con. Generative AI empowers not the artist, not the writer, but the tech industry.

It goes on like that (it’s good rant) and I can’t say I disagree. At best, generative AI could be a benefit to consumers of content by providing them more of it at less cost, and perhaps tailored to their particular preferences. But for the creators there is absolutely nothing in generative AI for them. Being creative is about personal expression. Why have a machine write the story you want to tell? Tell it yourself!

That said, there are two things that have, up to this point, kept me from fully joining the anti-AI crusade.

First, there’s more than a whiff of moral panic about generative AI, in the sense that it reminds me of similar complaints about other artistic technological breakthroughs. Session musicians were up in arms that the Mellotron would put the out of business, but it turns out the a Mellotron doesn’t sound like live instruments played by human beings – it sounds (gloriously) like a Mellotron. Same with something like AutoTune, which may be used to “fix” a human vocalist, but has transformed more into an instrument/intentional effect with its own sound and characteristics. Will we look at generative AI that way in ten or twenty years? I’m not saying we will, but I’m not saying we won’t, either.

Second, most seem to agree that using generative AI is a cheat if used to “write” “your” book – how is it any different than hiring a ghost writer to do it? Honestly, putting to one side concerns about how AI engines are trained (a big aside, I’ll admit), isn’t hiring someone to write a book you put your name on just as bad as putting your name on something generated by a computer? Yes, it’s better in some spiritual sense ultimately for the content to be generated by a human rather than a computer, but it’s still not your story, is it?

Those are questions that will be worked out over the coming years. Right now, in 2024, however, it should be enough for an organization devoted to writing to say “generative AI is not welcome here,” while making room for the use of AI-adjacent technologies that help people tell their own stories. That NaNoWriMo can’t make that fairly simple declaration is, for me, enough to no longer be a participant, at least in any official way.

Thank you, NaNoWriMo, for how you helped jump start my life as a writer. I’ve got it from here.