The National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) organization has found itself at the center of a heated debate over the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in creative writing. The controversy began when the organization published an FAQ that described criticism of AI-generated novels as “classist” and “ableist,” sparking widespread outrage among writers on social media.
The FAQ, which aimed to address the use of AI in writing, suggested that tools like generative AI models could be beneficial for individuals who may not have the means to hire human writing assistants or who face cognitive challenges. However, many writers argued that these tools raise significant ethical concerns, particularly with regards to copyright and the potential for mass plagiarism.
Critics pointed out that generative AI models are trained on vast amounts of existing text, including copyrighted works, without permission or compensation to the original authors. This, they argued, undermines the value of human creativity and the hard work that goes into writing a novel. Chuck Wendig, a prominent author, wrote on his blog that “Generative AI empowers not the artist, not the writer, but the tech industry. It steals content to remake content, graverobbing existing material to staple together its Frankensteinian idea of art and story.”
The backlash against NaNoWriMo’s stance on AI was swift and severe, with several prominent authors, including Daniel José Older, a lead story architect for Star Wars: The High Republic, resigning from the organization’s board in protest. Many writers took to social media to express their opposition to the use of AI in creative writing, with some arguing that it devalues the skills and effort that human writers bring to the craft.
NaNoWriMo’s use of terms like “classist” and “ableist” to defend the potential use of generative AI was particularly galling to many critics, who argued that the organization was using these terms to silence legitimate concerns about the impact of AI on the writing industry.
One writer, who identifies as disabled, wrote on social media, “A huge middle finger to @NaNoWriMo for this laughable bullshit. Signed, a poor, disabled and chronically ill writer and artist. Miss me by a wide margin with that ableist and privileged bullshit.”
In response to the criticism, NaNoWriMo updated its FAQ to acknowledge concerns about the impact of AI on the writing industry and to condemn “bad actors in the AI space who are doing harm to writers and who are acting unethically.” However, the organization maintained its position that the categorical condemnation of AI is problematic, citing emails from disabled individuals who use generative AI tools to assist with composition.
Despite the controversy, NaNoWriMo remains committed to accepting generative AI as a set of potential writing tools, consistent with its “overall position on nondiscrimination with respect to approaches to creativity, writer’s resources, and personal choice.” The organization stated, “We absolutely do not condemn AI, and we recognize and respect writers who believe that AI tools are right for them. We recognize that some members of our community stand staunchly against AI for themselves, and that’s perfectly fine. As individuals, we have the freedom to make our own decisions.”
