3 ms·

“Generative AI empowers not the artist, not the writer, but the tech industry,” Star Wars: Aftermath author Chuck Wendig said in response to NaNoWriMo’s stance.

“Generative AI empowers not the artist, not the writer, but the tech industry,” Star Wars: Aftermath author Chuck Wendig said in response to NaNoWriMo’s stance. “It steals content to remake content, graverobbing existing material to staple together its Frankensteinian idea of art and story.” Like the way you stole Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to construct your analogy here? Come off it guys... the NaNoWriMo org already said they aren't endorsing the use of AI to write your entire submission for you. They're just saying they aren't going to categorically condemn AI across the board. Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. Especially given that pretty much everything - human generated OR AI generated - builds on "that which came before".

nopelynopington 2y ago
> NaNoWriMo org already said they aren't endorsing the use of AI to write your entire submission for you. There is no submission in nano, it's literally just a participation challenge. There's nothing at stake for them. I assume they only brought it up because they got sponsorship from an AI tool
- mindcrime 2y ago
  There is no submission in nano, it's literally just a participation challenge. Exactly. Which is just one MORE reason why all of this is just a tempest in a teapot.
  - nopelynopington 2y ago
    It's kind of like if the Boston marathon was suddenly sponsored by Uber and said "we're not saying drive instead of run, but it's ok to take a cab some of the way" Who cares? It's just for fun right?
jrflowers 2y ago
>Like the way you stole Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to construct your analogy here? This makes sense as an analogy because using your brain to think before you write is the same thing as using a tool that stands in for using your brain to think before you write.
darby_nine 2y ago
> Come off it guys... the NaNoWriMo org already said they aren't endorsing the use of AI to write your entire submission for you. Maybe I'm reading different critiques, but the angry people I've read have been upset with the labeling of condemnation of using AI to write as classest or ableist. > They're just saying they aren't going to categorically condemn AI across the board. Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. Especially given that pretty much everything - human generated OR AI generated - builds on "that which came before". Given how much AI-generation undercuts the core premise of the activity—writing out text—I don't really follow you. Besides if someone produces art of any merit the creator hardly needs the endorsement of NaNoWriMo to appear legitimate.

nopelynopington 2y ago

> NaNoWriMo org already said they aren't endorsing the use of AI to write your entire submission for you. There is no submission in nano, it's literally just a participation challenge. There's nothing at stake for them. I assume they only brought it up because they got sponsorship from an AI tool

mindcrime 2y ago
There is no submission in nano, it's literally just a participation challenge. Exactly. Which is just one MORE reason why all of this is just a tempest in a teapot.
- nopelynopington 2y ago
  It's kind of like if the Boston marathon was suddenly sponsored by Uber and said "we're not saying drive instead of run, but it's ok to take a cab some of the way" Who cares? It's just for fun right?

jrflowers 2y ago

>Like the way you stole Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to construct your analogy here? This makes sense as an analogy because using your brain to think before you write is the same thing as using a tool that stands in for using your brain to think before you write.

darby_nine 2y ago

> Come off it guys... the NaNoWriMo org already said they aren't endorsing the use of AI to write your entire submission for you. Maybe I'm reading different critiques, but the angry people I've read have been upset with the labeling of condemnation of using AI to write as classest or ableist. > They're just saying they aren't going to categorically condemn AI across the board. Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. Especially given that pretty much everything - human generated OR AI generated - builds on "that which came before". Given how much AI-generation undercuts the core premise of the activity—writing out text—I don't really follow you. Besides if someone produces art of any merit the creator hardly needs the endorsement of NaNoWriMo to appear legitimate.