WOW! Literally as I was sitting at my laptop watching this video an Ad interrupted the video for an AI software that can write entire Ebooks. These bastards have no conscience! I swear I am NOT making this up! 🤬
Great analysis and commentary. Daniel Greene has a video on this topic with similar conditions. He noted that some of the sponsors have incorporated generative AI into their products, and this might explain NaNoWriMo's pro-AI position. Smaller communities on non-corporate platforms is definitely the way to go now.
I’ll probably come back and edit this comment as I watch more of the video, but at 2:45, your reaction really resonates with me, because I felt so much sadness watching all of this on social media the other day. I haven’t had as much time to do NaNo in recent years, but it was a part of shaping me into the writer I am for over a decade. It connected me to other writers. It got me over that fear and insecurity. It got me to try other genres and even mediums as a NaNo Rebel (I wrote a graphic novel script one year and a screenplay another). I even MLed for a time. But after seeing their AI post, their response, the way they carelessly wielded words like “ableist” - and then finding all the other controversy and realizing this organization was wholly unrecognizable, I deleted my account. But as I did that, I teared up and it felt so weird. It was just a contest, just a website. But it was such a big part of my life for so long. So your reaction resonates with me. Thanks for making this video.
I'm sad for you that it resonates because it's not a fun feeling but I am glad I made you feel seen in this way. I teared up when I deleted my account too.
Great analysis! I was also a fan of NaNo for many years. As a freelance editor, I really hate that they felt the need to berate people who think editors should be paid for their work. It takes me 20 to 30 hours to edit a typical novel. Even if I did that for $10 an hour, which is way below industry standards, I would still be charging $200 to $300. I get that many people can't come up with $200 or $300. But I also deserve to get paid for the work I do. That isn't classist. Would NaNo call people classist for expecting that they pay their plumber?
Great words, Rochelle. What's so mind-boggling about this entire this thing to me, personally, is that their excuse for not condemning generative AI is because of people using non generative AI to edit their works, as if that's the same thing. I didn't know that NaNo was about editing - I thought that it was about first drafting?!
Well, to serve as Devil's advocate, writing with AI is not as simple as people think, and neither it kill the artistic human touch - if you prompt it right and use it as an assistant. I'm able to have the time to focus on my self-improvement because a harder part of the work of writing a book, which can be brainstorming nor writing, is being helped out by AI. I say that as a neurodivergent, autistic and ADHD writer. Yes, someone neurodivergent who uses AI, wow what a surprise. Decision fatigue is real, just as is procastination, and people who are not neurodivergent will never understand what being 'frozen' means. The pilled up amount of unfinished drafts, the impulsivity of starting a story after another because of too much ideas. A snob and ignorant individual would blame it on lack of effort, when it's not. Sure, there's a lot of neurodivergent people who don't use AI and can write just fine, but hey, Ritalin is expensive as heck where I live. I may not have money to afford meds, but Claude is like 20 bucks per month. Wanna blame someone? Blame the government then. Jason Hamilton has written an excellent book on this topic and he even has a TH-cam channel, so I'll quote his words: "The most frequent criticism I get from well-intentioned yet misinformed authors is that using AI makes you lazy. That somehow, by utilizing this incredible technology, you're taking the easy way out and not doing the work required to be an author. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, I've discovered that writing with AI actually makes you a better writer. It forces you to gain a deeper understanding of story structure, character development, pacing, and all the other intricacies that go into crafting a compelling book." So according to him, these are the benefits of writing with AI: - AI Lets You Study Stories in Your Genre - AI Gives You More Time for Deliberate Practice - AI Can Analyze Your Work - AI Removes Decision Fatigue - AI Can Suggest Ideas and Techniques You Wouldn't Have Thought Of - AI Forces You to Learn Specific Frameworks - AI Forces Innovation "When photography was invented, some painters decried it, claiming it would be the death of art. In fact, it had the opposite effect. Freed from the burden of realism, painters innovated wildly - birthing styles like abstract expressionism and neo-impressionism. AI is having a similar effect on writing. By transforming drafting, it enables authors to push boundaries and experiment more. Suddenly you have the license to try styles too time intensive to justify before. History shows again and again that when technology offloads rote work, it increases, rather than decreases, human creativity. AI will keep pushing writing to new heights." I just needed to speak up for the writers who use AI so they won't feel like they're lazy. I've been called lazy for years even before I was a writer just because my brain didn't work the same way it did with neurotypicals. It's not nice, and it's very taxing for self-confidence. The last thing someone writing a book needs is to have their confidence thrown in the dirt, regardless of how "well-inteded" some advice are. In that regard, I'm admired with NaNoWrimo for not condemning them. It's sad neurotypicals won't understand this, but whatever. I hope the writing community can be open-minded and kind to everyone, regardless of what tools they use for their craft. After all, we're all in this together because we love telling stories, aren't we?
November is the absolute worst month (aside from December) for meeting such an overwhelming project on a tight deadline. How about April? Warmer and rainy days are perfect excuses to write and do nothing else but write. And drink coffee. Of course there will be coffee.
I mean, the old joke was that you could choose one word, and type that over and over again (or even copy+paste it en mass) until you had 50k words, and you could count that as a win. But like? To what end? What is the point of doing that? And what is the point of having a machine write a book for you? Neither one is you writing a book.
That old joke about writing one word over and over again is so true. In a lot of ways, I feel like this announcement isn't a change on NaNo's part. It's me (and lots and lots of other people) actually realizing this has always been what they stand for. Quantity only, cheating is fine if you want to, it's not actually about creative challenges or improving, etc.
The statement they made saying that many can't afford editing is the real classist statement. Those of us who have been doing this a while will work with other writers to edit our work. Or find retired persons who will do it for very little money. Assuming that getting edits will cost big money (and hinting that free editing is worthless) is very classist. Sorry, NaNo. I am not going to work with them again. I also wonder if they will allow AI to use our works to train AI in the future? My trust has been broken.
Right in the middle of this there was a commercial for AI to create a book from scratch. I think the AI behind the algorithm on you tube is evil. I have done Nano since 2011, sometimes winning, sometimes not. Our Municipal Liason, who was great has quit this year after 10 years, citing problems with the organisation. That seems to be the problem, when a grassroots movement becomes so big that it needs an organisation to run it, the organisation starts to take itself too seriously, and doesnt have the resources to navigate the world it finds itself in. The statement is laughable, I don't think anyone is hiring professionals to complete Nano. Nano is a personal challenge, sure you can cheat, hire a ghostwriter, use a generative AI or just type in 50k into the word counter without writing a word, but what would be the point. I suppose you can claim the offers on the so called prizes, but most of the same discounts are available through affiliate links elsewhere. Anyway thanks for the video, it's a shame it looks like Nano is struggling, it was a good time.
There isn't an AI behind the algorithm. There's just an algorithm that heard AI as a keyword and writing as a keyword and matched an ad that is at the nexus of those two keywords. It doesn't take anything sophisticated to match keywords.
AI uses an aggregate of other people's writing to create sentences, paragraphs and books. So when someone uses AI, they are using other people's hard work to create a work they are calling original. AI should not be copyrightable.
Our writing Discord is also considering a move to January, which overall just seems like the better month for it (new goals energy at the start of a fresh year, not swamped with finals if in school or work crunch/holiday responsibilities in adulthood). Maybe we'll see a whole new challenge take hold in a healthier month to complete it.
January does feel like a better month for it. I hope it works out well for your group! It would be nice to see a new challenge come up, completely unassociated with NaNo
Forum moderators are why I left Nano years ago. Conversations would be moved to different forums if the moderators wanted, and once I got my wrist slapped for just replying to a fellow writer with encouragement. It turns out the fellow writer was a former moderator who was shunned by the contemporary moderators. If I need that degree of nose-wiping I could always check myself into a qualified daycare. I regret Nano's downfall. On the other hand, it wasn't what I originally perceived it to be.
THAT LAST PART. At first I was sad about its downfall but as I thought back over my time with the organization, their missteps, their positions on writing for fun and not craft that have always been true, their EXTREMELY short list of published NaNo novels compared to how many people have attempted it... it seems less like a downfall from something good and more like they're no longer able to trick me into thinking they're something they're not.
I do hope you're right that we're returning to smaller communities over larger conglomerate forums like Reddit. We also need a return to when search engines that make it as easy to find smaller websites like the stuff hosted on Neocities rather than always prioritizing Big Corporate Owned sites. My only issue with how the return is happening is that it's via a locked down commercial entity - Discord - rather than how it was done back in my day (And I'm quite a latecomer to this - Early 00s): An open communication protocol (IRC) and privately hosted BBS forums. And I don't think I'd have ever gotten into writing without those things. Maybe without the IRC/BBS aspect (in these days that would have been a discord), but certainly not stumbling upon a community of websites all working in the same nanogenre of writing that appealed to me at the time (Not quite a webring, but in the same genre of connectivity of sites) and also in a way that made writing feel accessible to me?
Something interesting...They have since updated the page in question to fix formatting issues (and to try to fix their PR dumpster fire), but did anyone else notice that the text before this current version was highlighted weirdly in all white, almost like what sometimes can happen when you copy and paste from another program or website? I think it looks very similar to what happens when you copy and paste a portion of text from ChatGPT, for instance, into some text editors. Of course, this is all just my own silly musings, and I want everyone to know that, especially any lawyers that may be representing NaNoWriMoHQ. But just imagine, allegedly, in my opinion, perhaps there was some "creative" use of generative AI before their nonsensical, definitely-written-by-a-human-person statement ever hit the internet. Anything's possible. It's all just alleged of course. But the factual proof for the non-alleged parts of this comment is all visible on the Wayback Machine if anyone wants to gawk at the weird formatting.
I just read their updated statement and their note to the community. It definitely feels like too little too late. The damage is done. And if they're right in their explanation of why they messed up so badly at all that the NaNo community is full of vitriol... that isn't an online space I want to be a part of anyway.
"Generative AI" is different than machine learning in general. Generative AI creates "content" out of nothing and is what a lot of artists are actually upset about. AI as a "tool" would look very different--ie using chat GPT as a spellchecker. While something like GPT can generate text, the less people use it to generate their novels, the more companies will shift their focus. Machine learning (ML)itself isn't the problem and when AI defenders talk about progress or ableism they're "defending generative AI" but actually talking about ML. There are actually art programs that use ML ethically Rebelle 7 and SynthV AI come to mind. I'll hone in on Synth V tho. You could argue that synth v is a tool that can help people who are otherwise unable to provide vocals for a composition of music. Synth v ethically sources their voices. Synth V doesn't generate entire songs, just provides a voice for the input it is given. Nobody complains about synth v. Giving you this so you can arm yourself against the AI defenders.
I use Co-Pilot to find information: research, to find resources, and to narrow down topics (because MS has messed up my filtering program in my brain, so it helps me think in a way). I’ve not used it for writing. For the most part, if the person is able to write and has no physical or cognitive disability, then I find it cheating. I see how they can’t just reject AI writing in one instance and not reject in another is impossible, but they can’t leave some differently abled people unable to utilize a tool.
It's still cheating if they have a physical or cognitive disability. That is, unless you would find it perfectly okay for a disabled person to take a ride in a taxi to run a marathon.
So, what would you recommend for me? I was considering doing my first NaNoWriMo this year, a sort of memoir focused on memories with my father, but now I'm not sure I should use NaNoWriMo. Is there another option for someone like me?
I would look for a smaller community in an online space that might run a challenge of some kind or some camaraderie in that way. There are also some writing trackers available ("Free writing trackers" is a decent search term. I personally have one created in Notion that's free as well, and set up to write 50,000 words in a month.) And if NaNo still feels like a good fit for your goals, you can give it a try. Their program will still be around and they are backpedaling on their original statement.
I used to do NaNo in highschool, and I'm sad about what they've become as a company. Idk how they are gonna expect people to do 50k in a month when they can do 50k words in like however long it takes for the AI to spit something out.
Where are all these AI's that people are "using to write books" ... ? I've been building outlines and books for a while now. I use GPT as a sounding board, formatting tool, SOMETIMES for some ideas (which always need to be revised, edited and curated by me).... It simply CAN NOT just 'generate a book' as far as I've been aware. I've tried, just for fun, to see how far it can go. No matter how I program or prompt it, it always comes off as flat, directionless and just kinda 'AI feeling'. ... Like... How are people making books like this??? lol.
I don't think people are writing *good* books with AI. But people are churning out "books" and going from idea to upload in like... a week. I do think prompting AI well will eventually be a well-respected skill, and I had a great chat once when I was stuck in an old way of thinking about a character I needed to break out of, where I fed in something about the goals, my ideas for thematic resonance, and how I wanted to be sure my character had a life outside the romance aspect of the story. But it was the longest AI chat I'd ever had where I did have to keep pushing. For fun after reading your comment, I fed Claude, my personal preference for AI, a prompt that covers the first chapter of the last novel I wrote. I gave as many details as I could think of while still fitting the prompt into a paragraph or so. The writing is definitely flat. AI will never be better than a good writer. But I actually do think it's better than some very new writers, which can be a problem. (the same is true of AI-generated songs, which I've also played with out of curiosity and also to get myself away from a rhythm for a lyric that I knew needed to change but I wasn't sure how.)
@@hyperfocusworkshop “churning out ‘books’ from idea to upload in a week” Ew. Yuck. Gross. My stomach literally lurched. lol. Thanks for the thorough reply! Nice to see our experiences more or less line up. I agree, even if AI improves by an order of magnitude from where it is now, I doubt it’ll compare to a talented, spontaneous, creative writer.
As for "privilege" and the fact that not all writers have the resources to get help with their writing...wading through the repetitive, banal gunk AI spits out will be many times more difficult, because a writer needs to have written their own words in order to revise properly. Otherwise, they won't be thinking in terms of the entire story. God bless their hearts...those who use generative AI will have marketed the worst books ever. Yay! for the rest of us. 😂
If Nano wrimo is saying its classist and ableist to say no to generative ai under all circumstances, then they would have to hold the same ethical standards for publishing companies too. As soon as publishing companies go along with that, thats the end of writing and art as a career. The overton window will shift without an overwhelming condemnation from both community and industry. We're on the brink. As soon as it becomes acceptable to trad pub ai books, its over, pandora's box is opened. The only thing holding back this existential threat to the storytelling arts is a principled , resolute, uncompromising NO to generative ai under any circumstance.
The problem is people who think the world owes them something. Having tools to assist writers is great. However, AI is not a tool for writers to use. It doesn't help you write - it just takes from others. It's the equivalent of having a disabled person take a ride in a taxi to the finish line of a race. They didn't deserve any prize they might receive, and the victory was meaningless. Nobody is celebrating those people.
that's honestly an apt analogy. There are ways disabled people run races. Prosthetics, wheelchair races, any number of accommodations viewable in the Paralympics. And their athleticism is awesome. But taking a car ride to the finish line isn't the same at all as accommodating in some other way.
@@hyperfocusworkshop It's also a false analogy, because there is nothing stopping anyone from writing a novel. I failed english class. Writing just requires time, effort, and commitment. Not having money to afford an editor is a cop out. I guarantee there will be a local writers group where you can exchange chapters, and there are infinite writers groups on the internet. Edit: There is also free content on the internet and library to learn how to edit and write.
As a yet to be published author, I've got definite mixed feelings on AI. In a writing class we used AI for brainstorming, then deleted the responses. That was a useful use of AI as a tool. I agree that NaNo was ham handed in their statement, with no apparent attempt to address the nuance of the subject. It felt more like they were shaming anyone who would disagree with them. Great essay and a good job of addressing the nuances of AI.
@@cjpreach I absolutely agree. AI can make a great virtual assistant, but there's no love, no projection of the self, no humanization, in generating words.
@@hyperfocusworkshop I should add this- as I was typing the final scene of my current novel, both my lead and I were crying. I don't know if the final version of this book will be publication worthy, but those closing paragraphs will always be special to me.
@@cjpreach isn't there something so cathartic in that? I feel like I learn so much about myself in what I write, and reaching those moments of payoff--and feeling them--is the best. I have a novel that's currently published in its entirety on Medium. Structurally it has so many flaws I want to fix, but the last line makes me cry every time I think about it. And to me, that's what making art is all about.
I understand where your emotions are coming from on this. It's easy to feel apprehensive about the impact of AI, especially when it feels like it might disrupt industries and potentially replace jobs. But we can't let fear dictate our progress. Holding back technology because we're uncomfortable with its potential consequences isn't a sustainable solution. As someone who works with both AI and creative writing, I've seen firsthand how AI is transforming both fields. While it's true that AI will affect many aspects of my work, I don't believe it will replace me anytime soon. AI is a tool, not a replacement for human creativity and ingenuity. What AI does is highlight the difference between a writer and a storyteller. A storyteller weaves narratives that connect with audiences on an emotional level. That kind of connection can't be replicated by AI, no matter how advanced it becomes. On the other hand, writers who focus solely on communicating ideas effectively through words might find themselves facing more competition from AI. Those who were relying on basic writing skills might be pushed to develop their storytelling abilities or other unique talents to stay relevant. In the end, AI will likely raise the bar for both writers and coders. Those who thrive will be the ones who bring something special to the table beyond basic technical skills. It might be a painful transition for some, but it could also lead to a landscape filled with more truly talented and creative individuals. ps. I would add that as someone who is intimately connected with the creation of many forms of AI and not just a user of it, part of the issue you are dealing with is a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly how AI learns from the various types of content is it trained on. To put it simply, AI cannot simply call up a copy of a book it has been trained on except perhaps if you ask it to search the internet for a copy of that book to buy. It simply does not work that way. It can no more do that, that an English major could suddenly produce verbatim a volume of Shakespeare. Like that English major though, you can ask it write in the style of Shakespeare, or Homer, or anyone else with enough works for it to have discerned a distinctive style from, it will just be far better at it than the English major. Not to put too fine a point on it, but someone's style of writing is not their intellectual property, with the reason being that during their education, during the experience, during their training, they acquired that style from accumulated works all of the other people that came before them. I will give something to really be upset about, it has also been trained on material produced from bad writers which is most writers.
I absolutely agree with you that the rise of AI means that writers need to work harder to be better. NaNoWriMo's statement that implicitly says you can "win" by prompting AI to write the book for you is, to me, the final proof that I don't hold the same values as that organization. The challenge of writing 50,000 words in one month was one I approached with the goal of challenging myself to write both well and quickly, and to do so within community. Their statement, along with a pattern of behavior that seems to imply it's fine with the quality of NaNo books being dismal, tells me this is not their value system. It's shown up in small ways for years--their advice to add aliens if you're stuck, their partnering with vanity/scam presses--but their statement that you can "win" their competition by feeding machines removes all prestige and some of the camaraderie from the program for me. I don't want to associate anything I build with them because I value helping writers create their *best* work. To, like you said, write better and more creatively than machines can. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation about AI's uses! I've definitely found it to be a useful tool, just not for doing the heavy lifting of getting words on the page for me.
Generative AI is the issue with artists. Not machine learning itself. Not AI as, say, autocorrect. Your PS is messy because the general argument against datasets is that artists never consented for their works to go into them. Its not about "the ai is copying my art" its "the data companies used my art in a way I dont like without my copyright" Ive seen AI datasets that have images where the website's robots.txt had disallowed automated API access. "But you can't halt progress" is crap. There are ethical AI. There are tools that just use ML for editing and feedback. Banning generative AI from using stolen data will not kill the progress for those tools because those tools are not generative. If you can't follow what im saying you shouldnt be defending ai
@@hyperfocusworkshop The individual not being as valuable or even having fewer rights than an organization is a cancer that is probably going to destroy us long before any advancement in AI will.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | กลุ่มสีเหลืองวันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I_FdxGT3WV4/mqdefault.jpg)
WOW! Literally as I was sitting at my laptop watching this video an Ad interrupted the video for an AI software that can write entire Ebooks. These bastards have no conscience! I swear I am NOT making this up! 🤬
I've seen that very ad. It's popular on TH-cam.
Great analysis and commentary. Daniel Greene has a video on this topic with similar conditions. He noted that some of the sponsors have incorporated generative AI into their products, and this might explain NaNoWriMo's pro-AI position.
Smaller communities on non-corporate platforms is definitely the way to go now.
I’ll probably come back and edit this comment as I watch more of the video, but at 2:45, your reaction really resonates with me, because I felt so much sadness watching all of this on social media the other day. I haven’t had as much time to do NaNo in recent years, but it was a part of shaping me into the writer I am for over a decade. It connected me to other writers. It got me over that fear and insecurity. It got me to try other genres and even mediums as a NaNo Rebel (I wrote a graphic novel script one year and a screenplay another). I even MLed for a time. But after seeing their AI post, their response, the way they carelessly wielded words like “ableist” - and then finding all the other controversy and realizing this organization was wholly unrecognizable, I deleted my account. But as I did that, I teared up and it felt so weird. It was just a contest, just a website. But it was such a big part of my life for so long. So your reaction resonates with me. Thanks for making this video.
I'm sad for you that it resonates because it's not a fun feeling but I am glad I made you feel seen in this way. I teared up when I deleted my account too.
Great analysis! I was also a fan of NaNo for many years. As a freelance editor, I really hate that they felt the need to berate people who think editors should be paid for their work. It takes me 20 to 30 hours to edit a typical novel. Even if I did that for $10 an hour, which is way below industry standards, I would still be charging $200 to $300. I get that many people can't come up with $200 or $300. But I also deserve to get paid for the work I do. That isn't classist. Would NaNo call people classist for expecting that they pay their plumber?
Hey I need an editor 300 sounds pretty good. How about 500 ? :)
@@sixfeetwonder_ What kind of editing work are you looking for?
@@jettqk1 for a novel
Great words, Rochelle. What's so mind-boggling about this entire this thing to me, personally, is that their excuse for not condemning generative AI is because of people using non generative AI to edit their works, as if that's the same thing.
I didn't know that NaNo was about editing - I thought that it was about first drafting?!
Well, to serve as Devil's advocate, writing with AI is not as simple as people think, and neither it kill the artistic human touch - if you prompt it right and use it as an assistant. I'm able to have the time to focus on my self-improvement because a harder part of the work of writing a book, which can be brainstorming nor writing, is being helped out by AI.
I say that as a neurodivergent, autistic and ADHD writer. Yes, someone neurodivergent who uses AI, wow what a surprise. Decision fatigue is real, just as is procastination, and people who are not neurodivergent will never understand what being 'frozen' means. The pilled up amount of unfinished drafts, the impulsivity of starting a story after another because of too much ideas. A snob and ignorant individual would blame it on lack of effort, when it's not.
Sure, there's a lot of neurodivergent people who don't use AI and can write just fine, but hey, Ritalin is expensive as heck where I live. I may not have money to afford meds, but Claude is like 20 bucks per month. Wanna blame someone? Blame the government then.
Jason Hamilton has written an excellent book on this topic and he even has a TH-cam channel, so I'll quote his words:
"The most frequent criticism I get from well-intentioned yet misinformed authors is that using AI makes you lazy. That somehow, by utilizing this incredible technology, you're taking the easy way out and not doing the work required to be an author. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, I've discovered that writing with AI actually makes you a better writer. It forces you to gain a deeper understanding of story structure, character development, pacing, and all the other intricacies that go into crafting a compelling book."
So according to him, these are the benefits of writing with AI:
- AI Lets You Study Stories in Your Genre
- AI Gives You More Time for Deliberate Practice
- AI Can Analyze Your Work
- AI Removes Decision Fatigue
- AI Can Suggest Ideas and Techniques You Wouldn't Have Thought Of
- AI Forces You to Learn Specific Frameworks
- AI Forces Innovation
"When photography was invented, some painters decried it, claiming it would be the death of art. In fact, it had the opposite effect. Freed from the burden of realism, painters innovated wildly - birthing styles like abstract expressionism and neo-impressionism. AI is having a similar effect on writing. By transforming drafting, it enables authors to push boundaries and experiment more. Suddenly you have the license to try styles too time intensive to justify before. History shows again and again that when technology offloads rote work, it increases, rather than decreases, human creativity. AI will keep pushing writing to new heights."
I just needed to speak up for the writers who use AI so they won't feel like they're lazy. I've been called lazy for years even before I was a writer just because my brain didn't work the same way it did with neurotypicals. It's not nice, and it's very taxing for self-confidence. The last thing someone writing a book needs is to have their confidence thrown in the dirt, regardless of how "well-inteded" some advice are.
In that regard, I'm admired with NaNoWrimo for not condemning them. It's sad neurotypicals won't understand this, but whatever.
I hope the writing community can be open-minded and kind to everyone, regardless of what tools they use for their craft. After all, we're all in this together because we love telling stories, aren't we?
November is the absolute worst month (aside from December) for meeting such an overwhelming project on a tight deadline. How about April? Warmer and rainy days are perfect excuses to write and do nothing else but write. And drink coffee. Of course there will be coffee.
I just discovered your channel. I really love the humble vlog form, so I subbed. Thanks for everything and thank you for your vlog. ❤
Welcome and thanks for the sub! I'm glad you enjoyed it
I mean, the old joke was that you could choose one word, and type that over and over again (or even copy+paste it en mass) until you had 50k words, and you could count that as a win. But like? To what end? What is the point of doing that? And what is the point of having a machine write a book for you? Neither one is you writing a book.
That old joke about writing one word over and over again is so true. In a lot of ways, I feel like this announcement isn't a change on NaNo's part. It's me (and lots and lots of other people) actually realizing this has always been what they stand for. Quantity only, cheating is fine if you want to, it's not actually about creative challenges or improving, etc.
The statement they made saying that many can't afford editing is the real classist statement. Those of us who have been doing this a while will work with other writers to edit our work. Or find retired persons who will do it for very little money. Assuming that getting edits will cost big money (and hinting that free editing is worthless) is very classist. Sorry, NaNo. I am not going to work with them again. I also wonder if they will allow AI to use our works to train AI in the future? My trust has been broken.
Right in the middle of this there was a commercial for AI to create a book from scratch. I think the AI behind the algorithm on you tube is evil. I have done Nano since 2011, sometimes winning, sometimes not. Our Municipal Liason, who was great has quit this year after 10 years, citing problems with the organisation. That seems to be the problem, when a grassroots movement becomes so big that it needs an organisation to run it, the organisation starts to take itself too seriously, and doesnt have the resources to navigate the world it finds itself in. The statement is laughable, I don't think anyone is hiring professionals to complete Nano. Nano is a personal challenge, sure you can cheat, hire a ghostwriter, use a generative AI or just type in 50k into the word counter without writing a word, but what would be the point. I suppose you can claim the offers on the so called prizes, but most of the same discounts are available through affiliate links elsewhere.
Anyway thanks for the video, it's a shame it looks like Nano is struggling, it was a good time.
There isn't an AI behind the algorithm. There's just an algorithm that heard AI as a keyword and writing as a keyword and matched an ad that is at the nexus of those two keywords. It doesn't take anything sophisticated to match keywords.
AI uses an aggregate of other people's writing to create sentences, paragraphs and books. So when someone uses AI, they are using other people's hard work to create a work they are calling original. AI should not be copyrightable.
I absolutely agree. Thanks for watching!
Just like beginning writers copying more experienced authors’ sentences, paragraphs and writing styles. Stupid, tiring argument.
I'm pretty sure AI writing isn't copyrightable, and if that's not already the case, I'm sure it will be, because AI art already isn't copyrightable.
@@alexey635able Using insults invalidates your argument.
I had never heard of it. Thanks for the information. Best wishes to you.
Glad it was helpful!
Our writing Discord is also considering a move to January, which overall just seems like the better month for it (new goals energy at the start of a fresh year, not swamped with finals if in school or work crunch/holiday responsibilities in adulthood). Maybe we'll see a whole new challenge take hold in a healthier month to complete it.
January does feel like a better month for it. I hope it works out well for your group! It would be nice to see a new challenge come up, completely unassociated with NaNo
It was a very bizarre statement! Very happy to have discovered your channel. Subbed.
Forum moderators are why I left Nano years ago. Conversations would be moved to different forums if the moderators wanted, and once I got my wrist slapped for just replying to a fellow writer with encouragement. It turns out the fellow writer was a former moderator who was shunned by the contemporary moderators.
If I need that degree of nose-wiping I could always check myself into a qualified daycare.
I regret Nano's downfall. On the other hand, it wasn't what I originally perceived it to be.
THAT LAST PART. At first I was sad about its downfall but as I thought back over my time with the organization, their missteps, their positions on writing for fun and not craft that have always been true, their EXTREMELY short list of published NaNo novels compared to how many people have attempted it... it seems less like a downfall from something good and more like they're no longer able to trick me into thinking they're something they're not.
I do hope you're right that we're returning to smaller communities over larger conglomerate forums like Reddit. We also need a return to when search engines that make it as easy to find smaller websites like the stuff hosted on Neocities rather than always prioritizing Big Corporate Owned sites. My only issue with how the return is happening is that it's via a locked down commercial entity - Discord - rather than how it was done back in my day (And I'm quite a latecomer to this - Early 00s): An open communication protocol (IRC) and privately hosted BBS forums.
And I don't think I'd have ever gotten into writing without those things. Maybe without the IRC/BBS aspect (in these days that would have been a discord), but certainly not stumbling upon a community of websites all working in the same nanogenre of writing that appealed to me at the time (Not quite a webring, but in the same genre of connectivity of sites) and also in a way that made writing feel accessible to me?
Tough to broach a subject like this, and she does it so well. Ironically, the ads are all about using AI!
This will make the pep talks much easier to craft... no need to ever get stuck again!
Also, could you give more info on the AI you use to get organized? That sounds really helpful!
Something interesting...They have since updated the page in question to fix formatting issues (and to try to fix their PR dumpster fire), but did anyone else notice that the text before this current version was highlighted weirdly in all white, almost like what sometimes can happen when you copy and paste from another program or website? I think it looks very similar to what happens when you copy and paste a portion of text from ChatGPT, for instance, into some text editors. Of course, this is all just my own silly musings, and I want everyone to know that, especially any lawyers that may be representing NaNoWriMoHQ. But just imagine, allegedly, in my opinion, perhaps there was some "creative" use of generative AI before their nonsensical, definitely-written-by-a-human-person statement ever hit the internet.
Anything's possible. It's all just alleged of course. But the factual proof for the non-alleged parts of this comment is all visible on the Wayback Machine if anyone wants to gawk at the weird formatting.
I just read their updated statement and their note to the community. It definitely feels like too little too late. The damage is done. And if they're right in their explanation of why they messed up so badly at all that the NaNo community is full of vitriol... that isn't an online space I want to be a part of anyway.
"Generative AI" is different than machine learning in general.
Generative AI creates "content" out of nothing and is what a lot of artists are actually upset about.
AI as a "tool" would look very different--ie using chat GPT as a spellchecker.
While something like GPT can generate text, the less people use it to generate their novels, the more companies will shift their focus.
Machine learning (ML)itself isn't the problem and when AI defenders talk about progress or ableism they're "defending generative AI" but actually talking about ML.
There are actually art programs that use ML ethically Rebelle 7 and SynthV AI come to mind.
I'll hone in on Synth V tho. You could argue that synth v is a tool that can help people who are otherwise unable to provide vocals for a composition of music. Synth v ethically sources their voices. Synth V doesn't generate entire songs, just provides a voice for the input it is given. Nobody complains about synth v.
Giving you this so you can arm yourself against the AI defenders.
This is well-said. AI as a tool is vastly useful. AI as a replacement for human creativity is not.
I use Co-Pilot to find information: research, to find resources, and to narrow down topics (because MS has messed up my filtering program in my brain, so it helps me think in a way). I’ve not used it for writing. For the most part, if the person is able to write and has no physical or cognitive disability, then I find it cheating. I see how they can’t just reject AI writing in one instance and not reject in another is impossible, but they can’t leave some differently abled people unable to utilize a tool.
It's still cheating if they have a physical or cognitive disability.
That is, unless you would find it perfectly okay for a disabled person to take a ride in a taxi to run a marathon.
So, what would you recommend for me? I was considering doing my first NaNoWriMo this year, a sort of memoir focused on memories with my father, but now I'm not sure I should use NaNoWriMo. Is there another option for someone like me?
I would look for a smaller community in an online space that might run a challenge of some kind or some camaraderie in that way. There are also some writing trackers available ("Free writing trackers" is a decent search term. I personally have one created in Notion that's free as well, and set up to write 50,000 words in a month.) And if NaNo still feels like a good fit for your goals, you can give it a try. Their program will still be around and they are backpedaling on their original statement.
I used to do NaNo in highschool, and I'm sad about what they've become as a company. Idk how they are gonna expect people to do 50k in a month when they can do 50k words in like however long it takes for the AI to spit something out.
Where are all these AI's that people are "using to write books" ... ? I've been building outlines and books for a while now. I use GPT as a sounding board, formatting tool, SOMETIMES for some ideas (which always need to be revised, edited and curated by me).... It simply CAN NOT just 'generate a book' as far as I've been aware. I've tried, just for fun, to see how far it can go. No matter how I program or prompt it, it always comes off as flat, directionless and just kinda 'AI feeling'. ... Like... How are people making books like this??? lol.
I don't think people are writing *good* books with AI. But people are churning out "books" and going from idea to upload in like... a week.
I do think prompting AI well will eventually be a well-respected skill, and I had a great chat once when I was stuck in an old way of thinking about a character I needed to break out of, where I fed in something about the goals, my ideas for thematic resonance, and how I wanted to be sure my character had a life outside the romance aspect of the story. But it was the longest AI chat I'd ever had where I did have to keep pushing.
For fun after reading your comment, I fed Claude, my personal preference for AI, a prompt that covers the first chapter of the last novel I wrote. I gave as many details as I could think of while still fitting the prompt into a paragraph or so. The writing is definitely flat. AI will never be better than a good writer. But I actually do think it's better than some very new writers, which can be a problem. (the same is true of AI-generated songs, which I've also played with out of curiosity and also to get myself away from a rhythm for a lyric that I knew needed to change but I wasn't sure how.)
@@hyperfocusworkshop “churning out ‘books’ from idea to upload in a week” Ew. Yuck. Gross. My stomach literally lurched. lol.
Thanks for the thorough reply! Nice to see our experiences more or less line up.
I agree, even if AI improves by an order of magnitude from where it is now, I doubt it’ll compare to a talented, spontaneous, creative writer.
As for "privilege" and the fact that not all writers have the resources to get help with their writing...wading through the repetitive, banal gunk AI spits out will be many times more difficult, because a writer needs to have written their own words in order to revise properly. Otherwise, they won't be thinking in terms of the entire story. God bless their hearts...those who use generative AI will have marketed the worst books ever. Yay! for the rest of us. 😂
If Nano wrimo is saying its classist and ableist to say no to generative ai under all circumstances, then they would have to hold the same ethical standards for publishing companies too. As soon as publishing companies go along with that, thats the end of writing and art as a career. The overton window will shift without an overwhelming condemnation from both community and industry. We're on the brink. As soon as it becomes acceptable to trad pub ai books, its over, pandora's box is opened. The only thing holding back this existential threat to the storytelling arts is a principled , resolute, uncompromising NO to generative ai under any circumstance.
The problem is people who think the world owes them something.
Having tools to assist writers is great. However, AI is not a tool for writers to use. It doesn't help you write - it just takes from others. It's the equivalent of having a disabled person take a ride in a taxi to the finish line of a race. They didn't deserve any prize they might receive, and the victory was meaningless. Nobody is celebrating those people.
that's honestly an apt analogy. There are ways disabled people run races. Prosthetics, wheelchair races, any number of accommodations viewable in the Paralympics. And their athleticism is awesome. But taking a car ride to the finish line isn't the same at all as accommodating in some other way.
@@hyperfocusworkshop It's also a false analogy, because there is nothing stopping anyone from writing a novel.
I failed english class.
Writing just requires time, effort, and commitment.
Not having money to afford an editor is a cop out. I guarantee there will be a local writers group where you can exchange chapters, and there are infinite writers groups on the internet.
Edit: There is also free content on the internet and library to learn how to edit and write.
As a yet to be published author, I've got definite mixed feelings on AI. In a writing class we used AI for brainstorming, then deleted the responses. That was a useful use of AI as a tool.
I agree that NaNo was ham handed in their statement, with no apparent attempt to address the nuance of the subject. It felt more like they were shaming anyone who would disagree with them.
Great essay and a good job of addressing the nuances of AI.
With Generative AI, I can write a 50K novel EVERY DAY of the NaNoWriMo Month!
You could. To what end?
@@hyperfocusworkshop I couldn't bring myself to do it. No heart, no tears in the creation of Gen AI art.
@@cjpreach I absolutely agree. AI can make a great virtual assistant, but there's no love, no projection of the self, no humanization, in generating words.
@@hyperfocusworkshop I should add this- as I was typing the final scene of my current novel, both my lead and I were crying. I don't know if the final version of this book will be publication worthy, but those closing paragraphs will always be special to me.
@@cjpreach isn't there something so cathartic in that? I feel like I learn so much about myself in what I write, and reaching those moments of payoff--and feeling them--is the best. I have a novel that's currently published in its entirety on Medium. Structurally it has so many flaws I want to fix, but the last line makes me cry every time I think about it. And to me, that's what making art is all about.
I understand where your emotions are coming from on this. It's easy to feel apprehensive about the impact of AI, especially when it feels like it might disrupt industries and potentially replace jobs.
But we can't let fear dictate our progress. Holding back technology because we're uncomfortable with its potential consequences isn't a sustainable solution.
As someone who works with both AI and creative writing, I've seen firsthand how AI is transforming both fields. While it's true that AI will affect many aspects of my work, I don't believe it will replace me anytime soon. AI is a tool, not a replacement for human creativity and ingenuity.
What AI does is highlight the difference between a writer and a storyteller. A storyteller weaves narratives that connect with audiences on an emotional level. That kind of connection can't be replicated by AI, no matter how advanced it becomes.
On the other hand, writers who focus solely on communicating ideas effectively through words might find themselves facing more competition from AI. Those who were relying on basic writing skills might be pushed to develop their storytelling abilities or other unique talents to stay relevant.
In the end, AI will likely raise the bar for both writers and coders. Those who thrive will be the ones who bring something special to the table beyond basic technical skills. It might be a painful transition for some, but it could also lead to a landscape filled with more truly talented and creative individuals.
ps. I would add that as someone who is intimately connected with the creation of many forms of AI and not just a user of it, part of the issue you are dealing with is a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly how AI learns from the various types of content is it trained on. To put it simply, AI cannot simply call up a copy of a book it has been trained on except perhaps if you ask it to search the internet for a copy of that book to buy. It simply does not work that way. It can no more do that, that an English major could suddenly produce verbatim a volume of Shakespeare. Like that English major though, you can ask it write in the style of Shakespeare, or Homer, or anyone else with enough works for it to have discerned a distinctive style from, it will just be far better at it than the English major. Not to put too fine a point on it, but someone's style of writing is not their intellectual property, with the reason being that during their education, during the experience, during their training, they acquired that style from accumulated works all of the other people that came before them. I will give something to really be upset about, it has also been trained on material produced from bad writers which is most writers.
I absolutely agree with you that the rise of AI means that writers need to work harder to be better.
NaNoWriMo's statement that implicitly says you can "win" by prompting AI to write the book for you is, to me, the final proof that I don't hold the same values as that organization. The challenge of writing 50,000 words in one month was one I approached with the goal of challenging myself to write both well and quickly, and to do so within community.
Their statement, along with a pattern of behavior that seems to imply it's fine with the quality of NaNo books being dismal, tells me this is not their value system. It's shown up in small ways for years--their advice to add aliens if you're stuck, their partnering with vanity/scam presses--but their statement that you can "win" their competition by feeding machines removes all prestige and some of the camaraderie from the program for me.
I don't want to associate anything I build with them because I value helping writers create their *best* work. To, like you said, write better and more creatively than machines can.
Thanks for the thoughtful conversation about AI's uses! I've definitely found it to be a useful tool, just not for doing the heavy lifting of getting words on the page for me.
Generative AI is the issue with artists. Not machine learning itself. Not AI as, say, autocorrect.
Your PS is messy because the general argument against datasets is that artists never consented for their works to go into them.
Its not about "the ai is copying my art" its "the data companies used my art in a way I dont like without my copyright"
Ive seen AI datasets that have images where the website's robots.txt had disallowed automated API access.
"But you can't halt progress" is crap. There are ethical AI. There are tools that just use ML for editing and feedback. Banning generative AI from using stolen data will not kill the progress for those tools because those tools are not generative.
If you can't follow what im saying you shouldnt be defending ai
@@hyperfocusworkshop The individual not being as valuable or even having fewer rights than an organization is a cancer that is probably going to destroy us long before any advancement in AI will.