Oh, NaNoWriMo, No.
Sep. 11th, 2024 10:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptThe organization with the NaNoWriMo mark not only got a sponsorship from an entity with an LLM tool, but then declared that "categorical condemnation of Artificial Intelligence has classist and ableist undertones, and that questions around the use of AI tie to questions around privilege." That was sufficiently out there that even the sponsor said they didn't agree with that statement and position.
NaNoWriMo has since walked back and clarified that position to say they just want to make sure that they're welcoming to all writers and that they don't want "virtue signaling" around what tools people use to make their works.
Some of the disabled people I follow on social media also want NaNoWriMo to not use them as a shield for their decision and position, because they don't want to use LLMs and they don't think of LLMs as assistive technology or something that will help them.
NaNoWriMo also equates things that aren't equal to each other when they say why they're taking this stance. It's true that romance writers are often looked down on, even by other genre writers, even though the fans of romance will knock you silly for disrespecting their reading choices. There's still some stigma associated with being a fanfic writer as opposed to creating your own original characters and writing their stories, even though there are now some authors that are willing to admit that the fanfic community is pretty good at helping refine writing skills and giving people practice at writing before they take the plunge into original writing (assuming that person wants to go into original writing.) And the indie versus trad publishing wars continue, certainly, where each has their drawbacks. Accusations of lack of quality for indies, accusations of gatekeeping, racism, quotas, and other such attempts to keep people out who should be in for traditional publishing, and how much leg work someone has to do to promote themselves, even when they're traditionally published. None of these things, save maybe the accusation of plagiarism against fanfic writers, is relevant to the context of using LLMs and similar word-generation machines to output 50,000 words.
They have further said that they don't want to have to engage in the business of moderation of their space, in addition to having deleted the forums in response to a scandal involving actual grooming. So NaNoWriMo doesn't want their community. What do they want, then? Word counters exist in numerous incarnations, and so does the idea of the writing sprint. What does NaNoWriMo offer to people who want to participate, if they don't have forums, and if they don't want their community to have discussions about writing, the process of writing, issues that come from it, ethics, and all the rest? A badge and some discounts on things for finishing. That's much less than what people want from the process of trying to write 50,000 words in 30 days.
Why does someone do NaNoWriMo? To put down 50,000 words in 30 days. Is it ethical to use an LLM to generate 50,000 words and declare your victory? Well, you could write "Ennui." 50,000 times, or cut and paste the one word and use the doubling cut and paste technique until you reach hexadecimal FF words, basically. The LLM will at least make the words look like sentences and read mostly like them, but the doubling ennui has less climate consequences, so it's probably more ethical all around to just copy and paste. You could cut and paste someone else's work and claim victory, sure. But most people who are doing the thing would say that's not the point, that the point is the process of writing, where you get the idea, and then wrestle with it, expand it, write it all the way out, get the discipline of getting your words out and onto the page, without having time to stop and revise, because you don't have time to revise until it's done. Using the LLM to write the words for you, without having gone through the process of writing, that's playing yourself. Having done the process of writing and then using a text generator to make the text itself from there? That might not be. (Although there's still the climate and energy implications involved there, and the potential ethics of what those LLMs were trained on and what permissions were obtained, if any, to use that material for training. But if we're talking strictly about the act of text generation, then using the LLM might not always be unethical.)
NaNoWriMo could have given a response about LLMs that take the tack that I do as a librarian whenever I get asked about the possibility that someone might cheat during summer reading just to get the books. Mostly, I say I'm not concerned about it, and for audiences of a certain age, I say, "Sure, someone could cheat, but then what happens is: Congratulations, you played yourself." Because the point of summer reading isn't the prizes at the end, even with the good swag that we have, it's the practice of doing the thing over time and building the habit and getting the opportunity to read whatever the hell you want (modulo how much your accompanying grownup wants to control what you read) without having to do reports or any kind of schoolwork related to it. NaNoWriMo could at least work into that space, where they say "we'll still call you a winner, but you missed out on the important thing by doing it that way." I guess that's still an unacceptably partisan position, to encourage people to engage in the process of writing, rather than to jump to the end through the use of specific tools.
What I find the most interesting word choice of the statements and the quoted parts, is that NaNoWriMo chose to classify the objections that people were raising about methods, tools, and the legitimacy of such as "virtue signaling." That's a pejorative in statements that are supposed to be about not judging someone else's choices. And it's a pejorative that I usually see used in contexts where the person who is calling a thing virtue signaling is expressing contempt for the person who is doing it, and is usually at least insinuating that it's not a genuine or serious belief that the signaler holds. NaNoWriMo is aggressively staking out a position that says there are no wrong ways to get the words out, no tools that are wrong for it, and 50,000 words is 50,000 words, period. It's extremely "no politics, please." And yet, when it comes to the possibility that some participants might pass a moral or ethical judgment on other participants for their choices, NaNoWriMo immediately judges them to be doing it to seek the approval of others and instigate bullying, rather than someone who has a genuine moral or ethical argument to that process and/or wants to encourage another participant to go through a different process that could be more fulfilling for them.
It's a perfect "library neutral" response, honestly. NaNoWriMo says they're not taking a stand, except to proclaim themselves morally superior to anyone who has an actual opinion on the matter and to declare they know the true motivations of the same. They can be above it all and dispassionately detached and they can tell anyone who wants to mess with their dispassion to move along and go find somewhere else to do their "virtue signaling."
I doubt anyone here is surprised at how many people have said, on my socials, that they're not interested in doing NaNoWriMo any more and will host or participate in some other "create 50,000 words in 30 days" kind of challenge, whether it's in November or otherwise. Because they want the community of people helping them and commiserating with them through the process, and they want people around them who are going to support their methods and decisions, rather than consider them "virtue signalers" because they believe the process is actually more important than the output at the end.
So, as so many libraries do when they get put in the position of choosing their neutrality and niceness over substance, congratulations, NaNoWriMo, you played yourselves.
NaNoWriMo has since walked back and clarified that position to say they just want to make sure that they're welcoming to all writers and that they don't want "virtue signaling" around what tools people use to make their works.
It is not our place to tell writers how to write, or to deem which approaches to writing are legitimate vs. illegitimate.This position extends to the sponsors they accept and the authors they invite for pep talks, mentioned in a sentence that I haven't quoted. NaNoWriMo also clarified that they didn't mean that people with concerns about LLMs were ableist and classist, and that some people will find using AI to be life-changing. And also something that should be very familiar to any of you who have been following along with how libraries have been handling demands that they take some stances on ethical issues in their profession and collections.
[…]
We are stating this in the wake of bullying and harassment that entered our spaces in the form of chastisements about "correct" and "legitimate" ways to write and acceptable vs. unacceptable writing tools. In the name of civility, mutual respect between writers, and inclusion, we don't want that type of virtue signaling in our spaces. Our priority is creating a welcoming environment for all writers.
[…]
We've seen tremendous harm done over the years by writers who choose to pick at others' methods. We've seen cases of indie authors deligitimized by traditionally published authors, we've seen certain genres (such as romance) dismissed as unserious; we've seen fanfiction writers shamed for everything from plagiarism to lack of originality; the list goes on.
Not only is this sort of shaming unnecessary and often mean, it's proven itself to be short-sighted. Some of the most shamed groups within the writing community are also the most successful (e.g. Romance is one of the highest-grossing genres; an increasing body of data shows that indie authors do better than trad-pub authors, and some of the biggest names in publishing started out in fanfic.)
We fulfill our mission by supporting the humans doing the writing. That means not allowing judgmental dynamics to enter into our spaces.
Taking a position of neutrality was not an abandonment of writers' legitimate concerns about AI. It was an acknowledgment that NaNoWriMo can't maintain a civil, inclusive community if we allow selective intolerance. We absolutely believe that AI must be discussed and that its ethical use must be advocated-for. What we don't believe is that NaNoWriMo belongs at the forefront of that conversation. That debate should continue to thrive within the greater writing community as technologies continue to evolve.In other words, NaNoWriMo has chosen niceness and neutrality, and they would like everyone to have their discussions about what's ethical or correct somewhere other than where they are. (Having an opinion is dangerous when you want to protect your brand above all other things.)
Some of the disabled people I follow on social media also want NaNoWriMo to not use them as a shield for their decision and position, because they don't want to use LLMs and they don't think of LLMs as assistive technology or something that will help them.
NaNoWriMo also equates things that aren't equal to each other when they say why they're taking this stance. It's true that romance writers are often looked down on, even by other genre writers, even though the fans of romance will knock you silly for disrespecting their reading choices. There's still some stigma associated with being a fanfic writer as opposed to creating your own original characters and writing their stories, even though there are now some authors that are willing to admit that the fanfic community is pretty good at helping refine writing skills and giving people practice at writing before they take the plunge into original writing (assuming that person wants to go into original writing.) And the indie versus trad publishing wars continue, certainly, where each has their drawbacks. Accusations of lack of quality for indies, accusations of gatekeeping, racism, quotas, and other such attempts to keep people out who should be in for traditional publishing, and how much leg work someone has to do to promote themselves, even when they're traditionally published. None of these things, save maybe the accusation of plagiarism against fanfic writers, is relevant to the context of using LLMs and similar word-generation machines to output 50,000 words.
They have further said that they don't want to have to engage in the business of moderation of their space, in addition to having deleted the forums in response to a scandal involving actual grooming. So NaNoWriMo doesn't want their community. What do they want, then? Word counters exist in numerous incarnations, and so does the idea of the writing sprint. What does NaNoWriMo offer to people who want to participate, if they don't have forums, and if they don't want their community to have discussions about writing, the process of writing, issues that come from it, ethics, and all the rest? A badge and some discounts on things for finishing. That's much less than what people want from the process of trying to write 50,000 words in 30 days.
Why does someone do NaNoWriMo? To put down 50,000 words in 30 days. Is it ethical to use an LLM to generate 50,000 words and declare your victory? Well, you could write "Ennui." 50,000 times, or cut and paste the one word and use the doubling cut and paste technique until you reach hexadecimal FF words, basically. The LLM will at least make the words look like sentences and read mostly like them, but the doubling ennui has less climate consequences, so it's probably more ethical all around to just copy and paste. You could cut and paste someone else's work and claim victory, sure. But most people who are doing the thing would say that's not the point, that the point is the process of writing, where you get the idea, and then wrestle with it, expand it, write it all the way out, get the discipline of getting your words out and onto the page, without having time to stop and revise, because you don't have time to revise until it's done. Using the LLM to write the words for you, without having gone through the process of writing, that's playing yourself. Having done the process of writing and then using a text generator to make the text itself from there? That might not be. (Although there's still the climate and energy implications involved there, and the potential ethics of what those LLMs were trained on and what permissions were obtained, if any, to use that material for training. But if we're talking strictly about the act of text generation, then using the LLM might not always be unethical.)
NaNoWriMo could have given a response about LLMs that take the tack that I do as a librarian whenever I get asked about the possibility that someone might cheat during summer reading just to get the books. Mostly, I say I'm not concerned about it, and for audiences of a certain age, I say, "Sure, someone could cheat, but then what happens is: Congratulations, you played yourself." Because the point of summer reading isn't the prizes at the end, even with the good swag that we have, it's the practice of doing the thing over time and building the habit and getting the opportunity to read whatever the hell you want (modulo how much your accompanying grownup wants to control what you read) without having to do reports or any kind of schoolwork related to it. NaNoWriMo could at least work into that space, where they say "we'll still call you a winner, but you missed out on the important thing by doing it that way." I guess that's still an unacceptably partisan position, to encourage people to engage in the process of writing, rather than to jump to the end through the use of specific tools.
What I find the most interesting word choice of the statements and the quoted parts, is that NaNoWriMo chose to classify the objections that people were raising about methods, tools, and the legitimacy of such as "virtue signaling." That's a pejorative in statements that are supposed to be about not judging someone else's choices. And it's a pejorative that I usually see used in contexts where the person who is calling a thing virtue signaling is expressing contempt for the person who is doing it, and is usually at least insinuating that it's not a genuine or serious belief that the signaler holds. NaNoWriMo is aggressively staking out a position that says there are no wrong ways to get the words out, no tools that are wrong for it, and 50,000 words is 50,000 words, period. It's extremely "no politics, please." And yet, when it comes to the possibility that some participants might pass a moral or ethical judgment on other participants for their choices, NaNoWriMo immediately judges them to be doing it to seek the approval of others and instigate bullying, rather than someone who has a genuine moral or ethical argument to that process and/or wants to encourage another participant to go through a different process that could be more fulfilling for them.
It's a perfect "library neutral" response, honestly. NaNoWriMo says they're not taking a stand, except to proclaim themselves morally superior to anyone who has an actual opinion on the matter and to declare they know the true motivations of the same. They can be above it all and dispassionately detached and they can tell anyone who wants to mess with their dispassion to move along and go find somewhere else to do their "virtue signaling."
I doubt anyone here is surprised at how many people have said, on my socials, that they're not interested in doing NaNoWriMo any more and will host or participate in some other "create 50,000 words in 30 days" kind of challenge, whether it's in November or otherwise. Because they want the community of people helping them and commiserating with them through the process, and they want people around them who are going to support their methods and decisions, rather than consider them "virtue signalers" because they believe the process is actually more important than the output at the end.
So, as so many libraries do when they get put in the position of choosing their neutrality and niceness over substance, congratulations, NaNoWriMo, you played yourselves.
no subject
Date: 2024-09-12 12:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-09-12 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-09-12 02:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-09-12 03:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-09-12 03:45 pm (UTC)But it's still showing how little value the org offers writers. My wife belongs to a Discord group for a particular fandom. The author has, more or less, self-published or small press published like nine novels or so and is hugely popular within this group. Obviously hugely popular as it's self-selecting. They do writing sprints all the time.
Seems to me that the fan base has moved far beyond NaNoWriMo. The socials have taken what they saw as a good idea, said 'How can we improve upon that?', done so, and meanwhile NaNo has remained pretty stale.
It would be interesting to see a trend graph of number of participants over the years.
no subject
Date: 2024-09-12 08:12 pm (UTC)I always thought the real strength of the WriMo was the local groups and affiliates that you could meet up at and find other fun people. And the actual process of doing the thing.
no subject
Date: 2024-09-12 08:17 pm (UTC)When it comes to meeting up with people, you have a decided advantage there of living in a large urban area where lots of people are likely to participate. Not so much out here in the sticks where we are.
no subject
Date: 2024-09-13 04:58 am (UTC)then, when those people that THEY CONTACTED FIRST tell them to get fucked,
THEY START CLAIMING THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE VIOLATING NANOWRIMO'S CODE OF CONDUCT
no subject
Date: 2024-09-13 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-09-13 05:13 am (UTC)