Art is inherently human!
The sentence always seemed to carry more than irrefutable truth to it. I felt there was something pure in those simple words, something absolute, and that rejecting such a statement would be branded as an act of sacrilege. Those words rang so true and unrestrained in my heart that I began to perceive the thought as a force of nature—unchallengeable, untamable, and boundless in every aspect. However, lately, I found myself thinking of those words more than usual as if I was trying to hold my grasp onto them desperately, afraid I might wake up the next day and have forgotten them completely.
Times have begun to change in a precipitant manner. In the past couple of years, the rise of AI has affected more than just the technology industry. It slithered its way into healthcare, crawled through the educational system, and infiltrated into everyday life as well. Although it would be ridiculous to deny the developments and potential these tools bring (so long as their use remains within ethical limits), there are lines this technology should’ve never been allowed to cross.
Generative AI tools are nothing more but an insult to artists of all crafts around the world. These plagiarism software programs do not generate, nor do they create something new or original but rather stitch together already-existing material, thus forging a mutant that essentially simulates uniqueness through duplication. Supporting AI when it comes to art, be that painting or writing, entails the endorsement of theft. “An insult to life itself” is what Hayao Miyazaki believes regarding this technology, and I wholeheartedly share his opinions on this matter as he further maintains that beginning to rely on such tools implies that “we humans are losing faith in ourselves”(1).
The writing community has been struck recently by a new controversy when National Novel Writing Month, otherwise known as NaNoWriMo, made a scandalous and rather senseless comment on the issue of Artificial Intelligence. Their initial statement had a catalytic effect as the community grew outraged rightfully so, and although they revised those comments, the new position they claim to take on AI remains one of neutrality, thus abandoning the writers and disregarding their legitimate concerns.
In their original message, NaNoWriMo stated that they neither “explicitly support” nor “condemn” the possible uses of AI tools in writing, yet paradoxically they went further to preach that “to categorically condemn AI would be to ignore classist and ableist issues surrounding the use of the technology”. This rather contradictory wording appears to maintain NaNoWriMo’s impartiality on the AI issue while audaciously berating those who did express their concerns about these exploitive tools that brought harm to the writing and creative communities. In other words, so long as it spares them from any form of accountability, they would profess unbiasedness but not when others’ opinions challenge their self-righteous stance.
Why would this matter represent a reason for worriment though? It is because NaNoWriMo in their yet-to-be-revised statement claimed that being able to receive constructive feedback on writing from another human “assumes a level of privilege” that not every writer has. The issue with such a remark lies in the implication that condemning AI—which supposedly can reduce the financial burden of hiring human writing assistants—is perceived as an affront to poor or disabled people who may need it. Not only is this argument a direct underestimation and denigration of people with disabilities but it also insinuates that for them to succeed in creative fields turning to the aid of AI is their only resort. This kind of language is as derogatory as it is predatory. If reducing the financial burden and providing access to so-called life-changing resources is the ultimate objective then how can we remain certain that companies in charge of these AI tools will not be tempted to profit off of the people in dire need of their services? Unfortunately, this is not a matter of if but when since it wouldn’t seem too farfetched for these corporations to begin offering AI assistance in exchange for ridiculous charges only for the customers to be given results that are mediocre at best.
NaNoWriMo’s mission is to provide a safe space in the writing community where people can achieve their creative goals and connect—or so they claim on their website(2). However, this appears to be incompatible with their attitude toward AI as they believed and still do that this technology may be of great use to some writers. If relying on AI tools is the only kind of help these people require then establishing connections and collaborations amicably becomes irrelevant, and therefore the sense of community, of belonging turns into something dispensable, pointless even. A suggestion as such goes against the fundamentals of human existence and making this kind of statement that promotes division and detachment is dangerous, especially nowadays when people use the slightest contrast to deepen the wedge among each other in spite of the irrefutable fact that we are all one and the same.
Regardless of NaNoWriMo’s initial comments on AI and the fact that they’d apologized and revised their message since their position of neutrality remains unchanged. They believe that although AI must be discussed it is not NaNoWriMo’s place to categorically support or condemn how writers choose to use these tools and that this is not an issue they should get involved in as they consider they don’t belong “at the forefront of that conversation”, claiming that if they were to involve in this debate, they would not be able to “maintain a civil, inclusive community if [they] allow selective intolerance”(3). This seems a rather presumptuous declaration to make considering their position and involvement in the writing community for the past twenty-five years. As an organization founded on the principles of creative expression, an organization that prides itself in encouraging people to find and use their voice to tell their stories, not condemning AI-written books as part of the challenge (or in general) goes against the nucleus of the challenge itself. Endorsing the use of AI tools by arguing that individuals less privileged could benefit from them more than from building connections and receiving genuine support contradicts the idea of promoting a platform for writers to establish their voice and craft.
Repercussions quickly occurred. In the wake of the scandal, members of the NaNoWriMo’s writers board stepped down from their roles while some sponsors had withdrawn their support for the nonprofit organization. Users from across the world have also deleted their accounts, thus proclaiming their disapproval of NaNoWriMo’s stance on AI, emphasizing they can go on in their writing journey without the organization’s resources. Curious to witness an organization that has been involved for more than two decades in the writing community seemingly not knowing that words have consequences.
Regrettably, this is not the first time NaNoWriMo has found itself at the center of a scandal. Allegations of child endangerment were made against the organization back in 2023 when one of the moderators in charge of the Young Writers’ Program was accused of child grooming. Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been notified, the way NaNoWriMo handled the issue at first—despite its seriousness—is unsettling, to say the least. Apart from the fact that it took Headquarters almost two months to discreetly remove the accused moderator from their position, it also took a little over five months to delete the account of this former moderator. Moreover, the victims appear to have been harassed and silenced by the staff when they first brought up their concerns.
The situation is distressing on its own, however, it further proves the lack of accountability NaNoWriMo prefers to carry in spite of their status. Their concerns lay in the brand’s image without actually putting in the effort to create a safe space for the users, and like every other problematic organization, they start implementing precautions after something upsetting—something preventable—occurs.
Although the safety measures are welcomed, there seems to be a pattern with NaNoWriMo and the controversies they keep encountering. Just like their revised comments on AI accompanied by a letter to the community addressing the mistakes they made in their initial statement, the changes within the organization regarding forum safety and the safety of the minors followed only when the brand started to become affected by the issue.
One might argue that their intentions to point out that using AI tools can be life-changing for people in certain circumstances came from the right place. However, I find their insistence on emphasizing continuously that disabled or less privileged people could truly benefit from AI assistance to fulfill their creative goals while strangely claiming they “don’t presume to know what anybody needs”(4) to be inconsistent. It appears as if NaNoWriMo tells a different story about their stance with each note they post for the community, thus conveying the impression they are addressing the issue without actually stating anything definitive. Their undying position of neutrality on AI is nothing more but a defense, a tool of convenience used to keep themselves out of the line of fire while also granting them the possibility to comment on the matter even though they vehemently believe that NaNoWriMo cannot be part of this intricate conversation.
The core problem of this controversy persists with or without NaNoWriMo’s ambiguous involvement. Although it cannot be argued that everybody has the freedom to make their own decisions (even on their creative approaches), we must remember that none of the artists whose work was stolen and hacked apart to create and train this exploitative and devaluing technology were given the chance of choice in this matter.
Art is inherently human; therefore it takes time, dedication, energy, and many other resources that are limited for each individual who decides to pursue the creative path. To assume their life’s work should be abused for the sake of evolution is to discredit the sacrifices they made to fulfill those dreams and to insult them not only as artists but as people, too.
1 From the article titled “Hayao Miyazaki on the use of AI: ‘I am utterly disgusted’” by Tom Leatham published by Far Out Magazine on Friday 5 May 2023 17:30, UK. (https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/hayao-miyazaki-on-ai-utterly-disgusted/)
2 https://nanowrimo.org/about-nano
3 https://nanowrimo.org/a-note-to-our-community-about-our-comments-on-ai-september-2024
4 https://nanowrimo.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/30261595602068-Does-NaNoWriMo-believe-that-differently-abled-writers-need-Artificial-Intelligence-AI
