![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"NaNoWriMo thinks writing is merely a suggestion."
It is an egregiously clickbaity headline and deck/drop head, to be sure, and the giant image of an upset Lisa Simpson is completely extraneous, and such is usually the case with my admittedly very limited (pretty much for that very reason) exposure to The Mary Sue.
But, in this particular case at least, the article itself under all of that superfluous crust at the top was actually kind of interesting. (Even including all the Twitter embeds. At the very least, it wasn't an "article" that consisted of around 98% of nothing but Twitter embeds, which is something I've seen far too often lately on other such "news" websites.)
In any case, if you don't want to go through The Mary Sue, here are some other alternatives, (possibly) with less sensationalism. The thing on The Mary Sue is just what popped up in my Google News App, is all. (And, yes, I just took that and used it as an opportunity to criticize The Mary Sue itself in the first half or so of this post, as much as the whole NaNoWriMo thing in the second half, below.)
Anyway.
Basically, the people supposedly "in charge of" NaNoWriMo apparently seem to be of the opinion that using AI to write is okay, actually, and that you're being "abelist" and "classist" if you criticize its use in writing, because poor, disabled people apparently need all the help they can get. Or some shit. The people whom they ostensibly claim to represent seem to vehemently disagree, however, to the point that they are cutting ties with the so-called "organization" altogether.
I know people who have participated in NaNoWriMo in the past, but I've never tried it myself. It always seemed needlessly stressful to me, but good on anyone who has ever succeeded at it. I'm not sure why there ever needed to be an "official" "organization" attached to the whole thing, though. Especially one with such dubious notions. When I first heard about NaNoWriMo, decades ago, I just thought it was an unofficial activity that people were just kind of doing, of their own accord, as a "viral Internet thing," rather than something that was an actual "official" Thing™, which "needed" an "organization" of people "in charge of it" or whatever. Like, who even decided that shit? And who let them get away with it, and why?
From the end of The Mary Sue article: "The bottom line is: Writing is free. You don’t need to wait for a specific month or be involved in NaNoWriMo to do it. There are writing communities everywhere, especially online, where you can find support, validation, and inspiration to finish that story you want to tell."
It is an egregiously clickbaity headline and deck/drop head, to be sure, and the giant image of an upset Lisa Simpson is completely extraneous, and such is usually the case with my admittedly very limited (pretty much for that very reason) exposure to The Mary Sue.
But, in this particular case at least, the article itself under all of that superfluous crust at the top was actually kind of interesting. (Even including all the Twitter embeds. At the very least, it wasn't an "article" that consisted of around 98% of nothing but Twitter embeds, which is something I've seen far too often lately on other such "news" websites.)
In any case, if you don't want to go through The Mary Sue, here are some other alternatives, (possibly) with less sensationalism. The thing on The Mary Sue is just what popped up in my Google News App, is all. (And, yes, I just took that and used it as an opportunity to criticize The Mary Sue itself in the first half or so of this post, as much as the whole NaNoWriMo thing in the second half, below.)
Anyway.
Basically, the people supposedly "in charge of" NaNoWriMo apparently seem to be of the opinion that using AI to write is okay, actually, and that you're being "abelist" and "classist" if you criticize its use in writing, because poor, disabled people apparently need all the help they can get. Or some shit. The people whom they ostensibly claim to represent seem to vehemently disagree, however, to the point that they are cutting ties with the so-called "organization" altogether.
I know people who have participated in NaNoWriMo in the past, but I've never tried it myself. It always seemed needlessly stressful to me, but good on anyone who has ever succeeded at it. I'm not sure why there ever needed to be an "official" "organization" attached to the whole thing, though. Especially one with such dubious notions. When I first heard about NaNoWriMo, decades ago, I just thought it was an unofficial activity that people were just kind of doing, of their own accord, as a "viral Internet thing," rather than something that was an actual "official" Thing™, which "needed" an "organization" of people "in charge of it" or whatever. Like, who even decided that shit? And who let them get away with it, and why?
From the end of The Mary Sue article: "The bottom line is: Writing is free. You don’t need to wait for a specific month or be involved in NaNoWriMo to do it. There are writing communities everywhere, especially online, where you can find support, validation, and inspiration to finish that story you want to tell."
no subject
Date: 2024-09-06 03:20 am (UTC)From:Bleh. Yet another so-called "controversy" fueled by ignorance and bandwagoning rather than any sort of actual issue. Thanks, social media.
AI is not the same as genAI. AI is basically just data analysis models trained to do very specific tasks. genAI is the one that has the whole bullshit copyright issue stealing art generating garbage let's just train on everyone's data without asking etc etc which is getting everyone in such a tizzy.
Expecting or demanding a categorical blanket ban on ALL FORMS OF AI because of this is bullshit, and basically just forbidding an entire technology from ever being used constructively.
Nothing in the NNWM statement claims that all forms of AI use is always good, or that any particular case is ever going to be allowed. I reckon there are plenty of non-generative editorial tasks that could well be handled by AI and it feels like this statement is explicitly trying to keep the door open for those, while still not allowing bullshit like using genAI to write your manuscript while you slap your name on it as the author. There is a lot of gray area between those two extremes, and it sounds like they're just taking a neutral stand on most of it unless something is demonstrably a problem.
Seems completely reasonable to me.
But no. "Hurr Durr AI Bad" has become the voice of this generation.