Nope. Don't Want Robots Writing My Fiction
NaNoWriMo opens the door to AI content and all hell breaks loose.
First, for the uninitiated, NaNoWriMo stands for “National Novel Writing Month,” and it’s an annual—and, I’ve heard, sacrosanct—tradition amongst a certain contingent of writer who enjoys the challenge of churning out an entire novel (or at least the first 50,000 words) during the month of November. There are no prizes, no winners; it’s done for the sheer pride and public acknowledgment of having accomplished the task. The non-profit that conducts this event has kept it running since 1999, so clearly it’s a popular one, but as a novelist myself the idea of signing up to crank out a novel in thirty days turns the creative process into timed sport, and that just ain’t my thing.
I’m sure many who’ve participated in NaNoWriMo would tout the inspirational aspects of its mandate, one that pushes reluctant writers to “finally get to that great American novel,” or whip up the discipline to produce literature on a speed-dating timetable. But none of that is really the point of this article (though it may be of another one). No, the point of this piece is that NaNoWriMo did something this time that set the writing world on fire: It changed its stance on the admissibility of AI content and the whole damn thing blew up in their face.
Prior to this year, the organization’s policy on AI, as cited in an article by The Washington Post, was as follows:
NaNoWriMo said writers were welcome to use artificial intelligence to “assist your creative process” but that utilizing AI to “write your entire novel would defeat the purpose of the challenge.”
Then, this year, they modified that stance, as WAPO lays out:
NaNoWriMo said it would “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.”
To condemn AI, the organization said, “would be to ignore classist and ableist issues surrounding the use of the technology,” noting that issues around the use of AI “tie to questions around privilege.” The group argued that “not all writers have the financial ability to hire humans to help at certain phases of their writing,” and that for some writers, AI is a practical solution, rather than ideological.
“Not all brains have same abilities and not all writers function at the same level of education or proficiency in the language in which they are writing,” NaNoWriMo wrote. “Some brains and ability levels require outside help or accommodations to achieve certain goals.”
[Emphases mine.]
This rambling equivocation on the topic sparked the kind of backlash that I, as an artist who finds reliance on AI to be the harbinger of doom, would have expected. NaNoWriMo’s social media blew up, people stepped down from the organization, participants quit the event, outrage against the references to “privilege” and “ableism” were heated and vitriolic. There was such an outcry that just a few short days after that announcement, the organization, clearly stunned by the backlash, issued a “note to our community,” offering an “updated” statement which basically boiled down to, “We fulfill our mission by supporting the humans doing the writing.”
Whether or not their walk-back will assuage the outrage, who knows, but all of this leads to my bigger, overarching issue: what, exactly, should the role of AI be in art?
I get that robots and AI have been essential, even lifesaving, in the arenas of medicine, technology, scientific research; bomb dismantling, etc., but why are humans so willing to abdicate their own creativity, their organizational skills, imaginations, exploratory impulses, etc., to inanimate “brains.” When is it “using tools” and when does it become like the Dillon Panthers relegating their homework to the Rally Girls and being totally, ethically okay with that arrangement (yes, I am finally catching up with the very fine Friday Night Lights)? There’s something disturbing about the trend, and the terrifying thing is that it’s only going to get more ubiquitous and accepted over time. At some point we’ll probably see whole novels written by AI “authors” available on Amazon (are they there already?). Google something and the first thing that pops up is input from AI (which I do read, but honestly? I’d prefer an intelligent human’s input). My Photoshop is now all excited about its “new and improved AI features.” Even the soon-to-be-released iPhone 16 touts it’s “built-in artificial intelligence.”
Holy hell, didn’t anybody see 2001: A Space Odyssey, when one of our very first AI characters, HAL, ominously declared, “I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that,” when directed to open the pod doors? Or what about the more recent, Ex Machina? Who could forget AVA the AI (played with banal malevolence by the fabulous Alicia Vikander) seducing the naive young scientist to set her free … to murder her creator and others, and escape to the big city where she’ll/it’ll no doubt wreak havoc on society. Or write a NaNoWriMo novel. Even Taylor Swift, in her well-timed and welcomed endorsement of Kamala Harris on debate night referenced the dangers of AI in her Instagram announcement:
“Recently I was made aware that AI of ‘me’ falsely endorsing Donald Trump’s presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation. It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth.”
[By the way, brava, Taylor, on all the points in that paragraph!]
We’ve been tip-toeing up to and around the inevitability of robots taking on more activities and roles in the lives of us meat-bodied humans, but it seems the alarm bells set off by teams of scientists who “warn of AI dangers” has had little or no impact on starry-eyed inventors, developers, and corner-cutting humans in every profession, including the arts. Learning to fine-tune, organize, edit, and sharpen one’s prose has always been (or used to be) essential elements of a writer’s skillset. Now people dump their first drafts (or even raw ideas) into ChatGPT and let ‘er rip. Is that abdication or efficiency? Some think the latter, especially younger people, but I personally want to possess and hone those skills for myself, proficiency that comes from doing the work, over and over, until you get it right. Call me old school.
The music world has been impacted by its own version of this technological abdication for some time now. When I started as a young session singer in the ‘80s, long before ProTools and auto-tune were around, we vocalists prided ourselves on getting in the booth and laying down tracks that were so spot-on in both pitch and tone that engineers didn’t have more than a note or two to “punch in” (the ancient art of re-recording notes or bars of a vocal that the engineer would skillfully punch into the original track). Yes, that sort of thing is easier to do with auto-tune, and certainly I have no argument with using it judiciously, but what evolved from the emergence of that stellar technology is the same sort of thing we’re now seeing with AI in other creative arenas. As one recording engineer who worked with many well-known young singers told me: “They cut one or two takes, wave goodbye saying, ‘I know you’ll fix it in the mix,’ then I have to auto-tune every note, I mean every single note, and add tone corrections to make it sound decent. They’re not invested in getting to that themselves.” Even live performances can be “assisted” by auto-tune mechanics.
Not much different than letting AI help you “get answers, find inspiration and be more productive,” is it?
It’s getting harder and harder to discern what’s real anymore and that’s a bug in the system. I don’t mind if AI is used and properly credited (i.e., the artwork at the top of this piece), but how often is that the case? These days far too many “photos” and memes shared on social media either look like well-done cartoons or are so graphically ridiculous there’s no doubt of their robotic origin. Can’t say I love any of that.
I know I sound like a technological curmudgeon, an AI-Luddite, but really, I’m not. I love technology; I use it enthusiastically, appreciate it immensely (Maps has changed my life), but when it comes to my art? My creativity? My imagination and the exploration of ideas? Sorry, robot; that’s all mine.
SIDESTACK: A weekly feature where I spotlight people, projects, events, and art … sometimes even my own!
I have a friend who not only owns a stunning villa in Tuscany (where we delightfully stayed last November), but is a singular, astonishing, and highly accomplished artist, most notably in mosaics. Mia Tavonatti is the consummate creative, and I highly encourage you to click her name above to explore her work, or visit her Facebook page; even enjoy this video of the breathtaking stair project she did last year in Dana Point, CA. She hosts a slate of creative retreats throughout the year, so if the idea of exploring creativity in the stunning surrounds of Tuscany appeals to you, email her at miatav@yahoo.com for details.
ALSO: With the recent sale of one of my photographs, I was reminded of my own artwork, to which I’ve given short shrift lately as a result of my focus on literary matters. But I do love the art form, I love the work I’ve assembled on my photography site, so I want to share it with all of you. It’s an eclectic collection in various categories, so please enjoy a peruse through the galleries and don’t hesitate to let me know what jumps out at you!
Until next Friday, have a great week!
This is so wonderfully written. I couldn't agree more. I do not like AI, I do not trust it. It's going to cause a real ruckus amongst us upright monkeys one day, and we'll all be flinging shit in the air because we can't remember how to do ANYTHING anymore.
I never had to punch in any of your vocals!
A certain soprano sax player was a different story.
I had to punch between four different tracks to create his "Live" album.
And then he got my name wrong in the credits. "Steve Smart"??
Good times. All before AI. 🤓