Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI

NaNoWriMo Is In Disarray After Organizers Defend AI Writing Tools (theverge.com) 151

The Verge's Jess Weatherbed reports: The organization behind National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) is being slammed online after it claimed that opposing the use of AI writing tools is "classist and ableist." On Saturday, NaNoWriMo published its stance on the technology, announcing that it doesn't explicitly support or condemn any approach to writing. "We believe that to categorically condemn AI would be to ignore classist and ableist issues surrounding the use of the technology, and that questions around the use of AI tie to questions around privilege," NaNoWriMo said, arguing that "not all brains" have the "same abilities" and that AI tools can reduce the financial burden of hiring human writing assistants.

NaNoWriMo's annual creative writing event is the organization's flagship program that challenges participants to create a 50,000-word manuscript every November. Last year, the organization said that it accepts novels written with the help of AI apps like ChatGPT but noted that doing so for the entire submission "would defeat the purpose of the challenge." This year's post goes further. "We recognize that some members of our community stand staunchly against AI for themselves, and that's perfectly fine," said NaNoWriMo in its latest post advocating for AI tools. "As individuals, we have the freedom to make our own decisions."

The post has since been lambasted by writers across platforms like X and Reddit, who, like many creatives, believe that generative AI tools are exploitive and devalue human art. Many disabled writers also criticized the statement for inferring that they need generative AI tools to write effectively. Meanwhile, Daniel Jose Older, a lead story architect for Star Wars: The High Republic, announced that he was resigning from the NaNoWriMo Writers Board due to the statement. "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."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NaNoWriMo Is In Disarray After Organizers Defend AI Writing Tools

Comments Filter:
  • Sports Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by John Allsup ( 987 ) <slashdot@chalis q u e.net> on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @08:39PM (#64760196) Homepage Journal

    While they're at it, why not make sport less ableist by allowing weaker athletes to take drugs to level the playing field.

    • Actually, some sports do have weight classes so you don't end up with the biggest muscle-bound testosterone factory on two legs mopping the floor with opponents half their size.

      Not sure how a similar strategy could be applied to judging writing, though.

      • by Morromist ( 1207276 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @10:09PM (#64760338)

        It would be interesting to have a section in the bookstore that says "Good writers" and another section that says "Just OK writers" and then a 3rd section that says "Honestly shitty writers here"

        • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @10:20PM (#64760362) Homepage

          I think that's what the clearance section is for.

        • Where to put Stephen King?

          In literary circles, SK isn't generally regarded as all that great. His use of words just isn't "good" enough, he leaves plot holes or other missteps which could be avoided, etc etc. But what he does is tells good stories that ordinary people want to read and can somehow relate to or understand. So it's tricky to know if he's a "just okay writer" or a "good writer" - it depends on who the experts are that are deciding where to put the books on the shelves.

          Then again, these days, in

      • Re: Sports Analogy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Cinder6 ( 894572 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @10:53PM (#64760408)

        NaNoWriMo isnâ(TM)t a competition like that. The goal is just to write 50k words. Youâ(TM)re up against your own procrastination, competing time commitments, self-doubt, etc. To paraphrase Steven Pressfield, youâ(TM)re up against the Resistance.

        If I squint hard enough, I can see the line of thinking that led to the organizersâ(TM) stance. Nano is ultimately an exercise in self-actualization and achievement. If a tool helps a person cross the finishing line, it should be embraced by those who need it.

        But thatâ(TM)s a lot of squinting needed on my part. Nano is a writing exercise. A tool that allows you to write less is fundamentally antithetical to its mission, and accusing detractors of being -ists is a naked attempt to stifle any dissent.

        Worse, LLMs are composed of public speech, almost none of which was gathered without permission. In many cases, the original posters of that information would have declined permission. And, of course, some of that data is copyrighted material and exists in what can charitably be called a legal and ethical gray area.

        Itâ(TM)s hard to imagine a community that would be less receptive to allowing LLMs into the competition. This stance by the organizers is such a baffling display of misunderstanding their audience, itâ(TM)s almost breathtaking.

        Luckily for all prospective writers, thereâ(TM)s nothing irreplaceable about NaNoWriMo, the organization. The organization is the definition of inessential. You want to write a novel? Go for it. You donâ(TM)t need them. You never did and never will.

        • Ha that's a fun contest.
        • and accusing detractors of being -ists is a naked attempt to stifle any dissent.

          Agreed, we'd better nip that in the bud! I mean just imagine if people started trying that tactic elsewhere!

        • by Rei ( 128717 )

          Worse, LLMs are composed of public speech, almost none of which was gathered without permission.

          (Jots down in notebook) "... Not... okay... to... learn... from... public.... speech."

          Got it!

          As for NaNoWriMo, it's never been serious. It's always been looked down upon as a pastime for people who will never be professional writers. So criticizing the use of AI in it is sort of like criticizing whether a person uses mods when playing a single player game. It doesn't affect you - let it go.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by whitroth ( 9367 )

            Kindly stuff it. No, I've never been in NaNoWriMo, but I am a published writer. One of my daughters, however, has done it for about ten years or so, and yes, she's been trying to get an agent for a major.

            This is because they were bought out by wanting more money, and an AI firm had it. And using AI to write is for the jerks who come up to a writer and say they've got this great idea for a story, and the writer should write it, and split 50-50 with them.

      • by Hadlock ( 143607 )

        I'm a little surprised they don't do that with sports like basketball, swimming? If you're 4'11 you might be a proportionally very fast swimmer, but you'll never catch Michael Phelps and his 6'7" wingspan. Also there's probably 10x more absolute number of skilled basketball players 5'5 to 6' than the ~300 or so NBA players who are 6'6" or taller, but are uncompetitive due to being a full foot shorter

        • Sports generally shy away from separating competitors based on a physical attribute. The only divisions you see in almost all sports are mens and womens sports and age difference - youth competitions exclude older competitors, because those are such obvious advantages. Otherwise, generally the attitude is let the best competitor win - if the best end up mostly being really tall, or really skinny, or really muscular, then so be it.

          Pretty much the only sports where you'll see official divisions based on phys

    • While they're at it, why not make sport less ableist by allowing weaker athletes to take drugs to level the playing field.

      Watching sports would be more entertaining if we made all the athletes take drugs but not let them know which ones. ;)

      • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @08:41AM (#64761120) Homepage

        "And the Kenyan competitor now appears to have stopped to have an argument with a hurdle - he seems to be really angry about something! The competitor from Germany jumped into the lead and... wait, he's going back hug the Kenyan athlete and stroke his hair! The American competitor seems to still at the starting line, and... I think he's ordered a pizza? ..."

    • Re:Sports Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by timholman ( 71886 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @09:45PM (#64760302)

      While they're at it, why not make sport less ableist by allowing weaker athletes to take drugs to level the playing field.

      A better analogy: why not make sports less ableist by allowing weaker athletes to use robots to compete in their place, and then collect the trophies for themselves?

      • While they're at it, why not make sport less ableist by allowing weaker athletes to take drugs to level the playing field.

        A better analogy: why not make sports less ableist by allowing weaker athletes to use robots to compete in their place, and then collect the trophies for themselves?

        Uh, we already do that. It’s called eSports. Where the physical and the virtual representation are worlds apart.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This is more akin to things like ramps for wheelchairs. The competition is over writing ability, not the ability to operate a keyboard or dictate a story.

        I'm not saying that just allowing pure AI submissions based on prompts is a good idea, because that isn't measuring writing ability either. But allowing some AI assistance for certain tasks, the mechanical parts of the writing process, to allow people to translate their story ideas and characters into written words, doesn't seem to be unfair.

        The issue is t

        • Re:Sports Analogy (Score:4, Insightful)

          by IDemand2HaveSumBooze ( 9493913 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @08:32AM (#64761100)

          Putting story and plot ideas into words is not a purely mechanical task, like writing the words down or typing them out on keyboard. Choosing the right words to make sure the language flows in a pleasing way and to convey the atmosphere and ideas you want to convey in an effective manner is a very important part of the creative process of writing. Some people feel this is as important as plot or characterisation - I don't necessarily agree with those people, but it's definitely very important. Using dictation software would be more like using wheelchair ramps, but this is very different from generative AI.

        • by Rei ( 128717 )

          Abused how, though? This is NaNoWriMo. It's not a competition with anyone except yourself. I used to do it in my early 20s; it's very unserious. Even a lot of unpublished amateur writers look down on it.

          • Fair point. I guess if people want to do Nanowrimo with ChatGPT, nobody's going to prevent them... But it's a bit sad because I don't think they will learn much along the way - which is the whole point of Nano.

        • But allowing some AI assistance for certain tasks, the mechanical parts of the writing process, to allow people to translate their story ideas and characters into written words

           
          Tell me you've never done any significant or serious writing without telling me you've never done any significant or serious writing.

          Translating story ideas and characters into words isn't a "mechanical task" - it's the very heart of the creative process.

    • Writing a book isn't the same as entering a competition.

      • Writing a book isn't the same as entering a competition.

        In a way it is. You are competing against everyone in your group (sci-fi, fantasy, YA, etc) to write a book which will get published. Your skill at conveying your story competes directly against others doing the same thing.

        Considering the number of people who write a book and the number who eventually get published, it is definitely a competition.

        • But that's not what Nanaimo is about. It has nothing to do with publishing, and most participants don't publish.

          Its purely about writing, challenging yourself, and overcoming procrastination by setting an arbitrary one month deadline.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      While they're at it, why not make sport less ableist by allowing weaker athletes to take drugs to level the playing field.

      Sure. Cat-4 amateur road racers can't compete with Cat-1 Pro road racers, so they should let the Cat-4's have bikes with electric motors. The next Tour de France will have teams charging up their bikes after every stage instead of resting and re-fueling riders. /s

      If humans stop creating and just tell a computer running shitty software to do it for them, what does that make humans?

      • Oh sweet jeebus. Cat-4 with no stragety skills on bikes that put them on par with pros? No thanks. There are too many crashes already with people who know how to ride in those conditions.
    • We just like to pretend that we don't. There's all sorts of things in our society that we all kind of know and we all just sort of look the other way when it's happening. Like how we use prisoners to inflict punishments and torture we don't want to do ourselves. Or like how minority neighborhoods have several orders of magnitude more policing going on even though they have roughly the same crime rates.

      If you don't think about it it's not a problem right?
    • Your proposal is to let some athletes take drugs but not others? Or are you suggesting that allowing drugs would just level the playing field in general. Most powerlifting leagues have non drug-tested divisions where the athletes put up pretty impressive numbers (much higher than the drug tested division) but it's not clear that allowing the drugs would change the set of athletes who are winners. An easier solution for that is what they do in golf where each golfer has a handicap.
  • by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @09:09PM (#64760242)

    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."

    So like sequels then.

    • So like sequels then.

      Well, more like what you can get away with once you're in the inside circle within the entertainment industry. It's totally cool to reuse the same old tropes, write yet another Hero's Journey story, or do covers of someone else's songs [avclub.com], provided you've made the right connections.

      Most entertainment is incredibly formulaic and people who make their living creating works that essentially are just derivative in nature too, hate that AI has pulled back the curtain.

      • by aitikin ( 909209 )

        ...or do covers of someone else's songs [avclub.com], provided you've made the right connections.

        Doesn't even take the right connections, just takes paying the proper royalties. If I cover any popular tune, I can release that with my mechanical royalty on that cover. The owner of the copyright of the actual song will need to get paid out their royalty as well, but I do not need (though most artists get) express permission (in advance) to do a cover.

    • Sounds more like automated plagiarism to me.
  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @09:18PM (#64760252) Journal
    If a book is good, I don't care if it was written by AI. Personally I think current chat bots are insipid, verbose, and barely readable. More objectively, they can't stay on topic for long periods of time and lose context.

    But if the output were good, I wouldn't complain about the source.
    • I suspect most people wouldn't have a problem with AI written books if the use of AI was disclosed to the reader.

      However I'm pretty sure most people writing using AI don't plan to disclose this and also most of them really belive that they wrote the story and it is actually their own creative output, even though they just typed into chatGPT things like "write me a compelling murder scene where a beautiuful fat-assed russian assassin murders a british spy by sitting on his head in the style of hemmingway" an

      • If they do that, then their writing will be really bad at this point.
      • by pjt33 ( 739471 )

        If ChatGPT knows the style in which Hemmingway sat on people's heads then I've failed to find a very interesting corner of the web.

      • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        I was dismayed at the AI narration on an audio book. Except it turned out to be a real human.
      • they just typed into chatGPT things like "write me a compelling murder scene where a beautiuful fat-assed russian assassin murders a british spy by sitting on his head in the style of hemmingway"

        Ah yes, Earnest Hemmingway. I loved her pornos, didn't you?

        Say, did you know that your browser incorporates a spelling checker? Have you noticed any wavy red lines under your... no? Ok. Are you red/green colorblind, by any chance? Have you considered just letting AI write for you? It might be an improvement.

    • Re:I have to admit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RazorSharp ( 1418697 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @09:42PM (#64760298)

      For me the most horrible part about mortality is that I will never have the time to read all the great books out there. Books provide an intimate connection with humanity and provide a fascinating window into the minds of others.

      A book written by AI can't do that. If one were to find meaning in a book written by AI, it would be like assigning meaning to a Rorschach blob. It's a sort of randomness molded into a pattern designed to confuse humans into mistaking it for something comprehensible. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm pretty confident that the best that LLMs can achieve is Thomas Pynchon—random meaninglessness structured like a novel.

      • I admit that one of the most frustrating things about reading AI output unknowingly is trying to figure out what derangement is in the mind of the writer. I can imagine a future AI would be clear and beautiful, like a crystal. We are not there yet.
        • I guess a better way to put it is that I view books as an expression of consciousness—something I have a deep interest in. Future AIs may be able to construct technically beautiful works, but since there's no consciousness behind those works they cannot express a genuine worldview. It's like falling in love with a sociopath who has not once spoken of their emotions sincerely.

          If we begin to accept AI written novels as an acceptable form of entertainment we risk empathizing with characters that are absu

      • For me the most horrible part about mortality is that I will never have the time to read all the great books out there. Books provide an intimate connection with humanity and provide a fascinating window into the minds of others.

        A book written by AI can't do that. If one were to find meaning in a book written by AI, it would be like assigning meaning to a Rorschach blob. It's a sort of randomness molded into a pattern designed to confuse humans into mistaking it for something comprehensible. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm pretty confident that the best that LLMs can achieve is Thomas Pynchon—random meaninglessness structured like a novel.

        Reading fiction has been studied. Generally speaking, fiction doesn't make people smarter, but they *do* tend to give the reader different viewpoints, and avid readers of fiction tend to be more open to other points of view.

        As to great books, I was quite surprised to find the number of astoundingly great books that have already been written, yet no one seems to read any more. I read some of the "Horatio Hornblower" novels, and they're pretty good. They were bestsellers of their time. Or "The Jungle Books" b

    • I agree. Let the market decide. If I hear a song that sparks my jams, I don't care if it was AI or biped meat sacks banging on brontosaurus bones. Likewise, I can read all kinds of different stories. If it's engaging, I don't particularly care how it came about.
    • ... it was written by AI.

      Point of this contest isn't creating a bearable story, it's turning-up: It's the ice-bucket challenge of literature. You can walk around the street block before you have a meal: That can be your mission regarding health and food. You can hire an Uber to drive around the block while you sit at home. I think most people recognize the shifting of the goal-posts. Here, the "Uber' is an AI chat-bot.

      The problem is, NaNoWriMo is asking AI to be your running shoes, or your walking stick. Obviously, most pe

  • by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @09:23PM (#64760262) Homepage

    many creatives, believe that generative AI tools are exploitive and devalue human art.

    Uh huh. I was once convinced to watch a German art film. The story (action? western?) was interrupted multiple times by a man running into the middle of the scene and screaming "ART!" while shitting. I don't believe that AI can do much to devalue human art after seeing that.

  • Over the years, I've seen some fantastic storytelling come out of people just letting The Sims or Rimworld play out and then using that to build a more comprehensive story. I've also seen people try to make comics where each panel is built up using prompts from the story they are trying to put together.

    People hire editors, people collaborate, I can see room for AI tools filling in those kinds of roles that normally another person would. So while I wish they would have kept their language blander, I think
  • by Harvey Manfrenjenson ( 1610637 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @09:39PM (#64760292)

    Writing competitions are biased against those who can't write, piano competitions are biased against those who can't play piano, and so on. Deal with it.

    Actual writers (as well as actual readers) tend to be horrified by AI. They're horrified by the low quality of what it puts out, and they're horrified by the fact that people who can't tell the difference are eager to replace working writers with computer programs. And, of course, they're horrified by the plagiarism issues that are inherent to all current LLMs.

    These pro-AI guys quoted in TFS-- they need to go fuck themselves and stay far, far away from anything that involves writing. Or anything that involves human beings, for that matter.

    • Writing competitions are biased against those who can't write, piano competitions are biased against those who can't play piano, and so on. Deal with it.

      Couldn't agree more. This idea that everything has to be for everyone is harmful. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make accommodations where it's feasible, and in fact I think that if we give some thought in the first place it's not a big burden in general. (Retrofits could be argued over, zzz) A writing competition is no place for AI, unless it's an AI writing competition. They should have one of those! And keep it separate from the other one. Just let people have things where you can still have your own thing for free, ffs.

      • by xynix ( 10502700 )

        Writing competitions are biased against those who can't write, piano competitions are biased against those who can't play piano, and so on. Deal with it.

        Couldn't agree more. This idea that everything has to be for everyone is harmful.

        This. Absolutely this. You can't reduce everything in the world down to a lowest-common-denominator... there would be practically nothing left. What about people who can't taste or have restrictive diets? Am I now tastist or foodist? How are you gonna navigate that? Outlaw flavors?

        • This. Absolutely this. You can't reduce everything in the world down to a lowest-common-denominator... there would be practically nothing left. What about people who can't taste or have restrictive diets? Am I now tastist or foodist? How are you gonna navigate that? Outlaw flavors?

          I’ve been on increasingly restrictive medical diets to the point I really can’t eat food anymore, ok a very short list of basic nutritive substances. Literally I’m intolerant to flavor lol. I’ve told people my entire life not to make the food they are making for the party/gathering/work function taste like crap just because I can’t eat it. First of all, that makes zero logical sense. Second, people forced to eat crap even I don’t want to eat but am forced to is just g

    • Actual writers (as well as actual readers) tend to be horrified by AI. They're horrified by the low quality of what it puts out, and they're horrified by the fact that people who can't tell the difference are eager to replace working writers with computer programs.

      You've clearly not been keeping up with what passes for lyrics in pop songs. If anything, when big name artists start using ChatGPT to help write their songs, it will be an improvement.

    • Not really (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @11:44PM (#64760474)
      One of the top Street fighter iv players in the world was a guy that could barely move his arms and hands. He had to use a special controller but he was pretty freaking amazing. Sadly his health problems caught up with them and he's not with us anymore. But as the Street fighter 4 player a seriously doubt I could get one round in on him.

      There is room to accommodate people. It's a matter of getting to the core of what the skill is.

      But I don't see how AI writing books falls under that. This isn't a special controller configuration where the skill of the game is still present this is a computer doing it for you.

      Then again if the AI was just proofreading and editing I'm not so sure. I mean authors have editors and those editors do more than just correct grammatical errors. If the AI isn't writing the story itself but is instead reading the story and making suggestions that's basically an automated editor. Now if the competition banned editors I could see that but I don't see how you would even begin to enforce that.

      And to bring it back to the fighting game community there's something called a hitbox where instead of a joystick you have buttons and it allows all sorts of things that shouldn't be possible that quickly became unfair. Fighting game community instead of banning them from tournaments modified the most popular current games and the meta and gameplay at the high end around the older games evolved to take the hitbox into account.

      So I could see the same thing happening here. Again assuming you're not just letting the AI write everything.
    • by machineghost ( 622031 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @12:57AM (#64760564)

      Its not a writing competition!

      In Nanowrimo, you only "compete" with yourself (to write a novel in a month).

  • by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @09:49PM (#64760312) Homepage
    This sounds like a person who believes in equality of outcomes at any cost, so they think that if AI becomes super-good (better than any human) and all humans have access to AI, then all humans will then have equal outcomes. This is a dangerous idea for many reasons, but the primary problem is that AI technology is clearly not going to be equally distributed. Why would it be? It costs enormous resources to train and then run, and if it's really better than any human, control of it is a strategic advantage. I don't personally think LLM AI is actually capable of outclassing humans, but if it really is, then there'll be an arms race.
    • If you read the fine print, It sounds a lot more like the stated equality reasons are just a backwards constructed justification to defend the commercial partnership NaNoWriMo has made with corporation[s] that sell AI tools. This was never really about equality, it's about money.
    • Absolutely this. Also, if use of AI in writing were to become really widespread, equality of outcomes would mean that everyone's outcomes are equally shit.

  • I was having a conversation with someone who was firmly of the opinion that using -c, -v is "art" and someone who can do that is an "artist" when using MidJourney and the like, because of the product it produces.

    Is it "ableist" to disagree?

  • There's no substitute for the real thing.
  • Generally when you hear people reaching for those "-ists" so casually, you can ignore them and not lose anything valuable.

    Doesn't mean the conclusion of "AI writing tools are fine" is bad, but the argument is so dumb you may as well ignore people using it.

  • generally when disruptive technology arrives, the market as a whole expands. why would applications based on AI models be any different?

  • ..and fully capable of real, human-level creativity, and maybe I'll want to read something it created. Otherwise: 'generative AI' garbage can fuck off.
    • Fuckin' A. These corporations with their "monkey-typewriter" farms can take a hike. So cheap and degenerate they'd rather lose everything chasing a fantasy of unlimited return than just pay a human creative a reasonable salary.
  • As far as I've seen, all the good voice recognition uses AI. So sure, we can't completely rule out AI, if some quadraplegic is using it to write down a story they are dictating. Also, computers are better than humans at catching grammitical errors (or perhaps "most humans" as I regularly catch errors in books I read).

    We can't completely rule out the use of AI in assistive technology roles, but having AI write or rewrite parts of your story according to a particular style (and by that I mean, say, "gothic ho

    • I like AI as a way to generate relevant suggestions for breaking writer's block. All human writing is derivative, I don't see an issue with an author using AI as an assistive technology just because it's trained on prior human writing.

      I do see a problem with letting AI do too much of the job. Writing is a human endeavor, with both writing and reading it being a human experience. Even once AI is good enough to replicate human-level creativity and skill, using it to do so diminishes humans, it takes someth

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • If you're entire brand is built around people sitting down and doing the work of creating something the worst possible thing you can do is tell people they can take the shortcut of not doing the work. This destroys the brand.

  • ...for solving real problems in science and engineering
    We don't need crappy AI writers or artists churning out endless volumes of remixes

  • by CptPicard ( 680154 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @02:03AM (#64760628)

    I find this usage of the term "ableist" to be completely ridiculous. Admittedly the word is being thrown around way too easily by disability activists themselves nowadays, but hey I was born well into the last millennium so what do I know.

    • In this context it is bullshit.

      But, there is also real ableism, and it does not even have to be associated with disability. Some people are exceptional, if they expect everyone else to be exceptional and look down on them if they are not... yeah.

      A person secure in their ability does not need to tear others down for not being able to do what they can do. They can accept that different people are different, and that's okay.

  • People trying to do a particular thing are discriminating against other people who can't do that thing by insisting that the thing be done? Lol wut?

    Accommodating people's needs in daily life is common decency. Changing the definition of a task to accommodate lack of talent is sabotaging human consciousness.

    Still, anyone who uses anecdotes like this to bitch about "wokeism" can suck a dick. It's not a real problem. Just a silly one.
  • When I was a student (a few decades ago, admittedly) there was this movement claiming that colleges and universities were "elitists" by only allowing top sudents in, and it wasn't fair to average students.

    So the colleges and universities started letting average students in by lowering the standards of their admission tests. And, predictably, a few years later, the graduation tests started getting easier too, because otherwise a huge percentage of all classes would flunk and that wouldn't look too good for t

  • ... the cool kids have to supposedly hate AI chatbots, but they also have to hate "ableism" and "classism"!

    Fire up the reserve cognitive dissonance generators!

  • Those who can, do.
    Those who can't, use AI.

  • ... every time someone calls themselves "a creative".

    It's like watching a person brag about how smart they are. Dude, if you were actually smart, you wouldn't need to be telling people.

    Adjectives of praise are supposed to come from third parties. You're not supposed to praise yourself.

  • I've participated in NaNoWriMo several times over the years. At one time I participated on their forums pretty regularly. I've published books I've written during NaNoWriMo, after several months of polishing of course. One thing that seems to resonate through the entire endeavor is an odd vibe that something ain't quite ticking right within the organization. Maybe it's the times, but there was an overall "must accept all things always" thing going on, and I don't know about anybody else but that's never bee

  • So this seems to be an issue against using AI to generate "original" content (yes, the quotes are deliberate).

    And I agree, that's wrong.

    But what about an AI editor/proofer? We already have tools that can analyze for spelling and grammar and not only are they widely used, it is considered silly NOT to use the spellcheck in your editor of choice.

    How about an AI based editor that can give advice on a more meta level? Something like, the story bogs down in description on page 3 when it really needs to be acti

  • What makes someone unique? Part of it is having an ability that other's do not.

    One of those abilities may be the skill to put thought to paper (ok today it's just thought to screen), but if those words are curated by someone else is it really 'your' ability?

    On the other side part of being unique is not having an ability.

    Technology such as AI just makes us all look the same. I guess that's Ok for work - which would then beg the question: why aren't we all just paid the same wage regardless of underlyin
  • Was the competition "classist and ableist" all the years before these tools were available for purchase?

    And how on Earth can you say this is "classist" as if you're punching up, when you have to be affluent enough to purchase the outsourced labour for resale as competition entries?

"What people have been reduced to are mere 3-D representations of their own data." -- Arthur Miller

Working...