Photo via NaNoWriMo

Minola Grent

Contributor

Since 1999, National Novel Writing Month, also known as NaNoWriMo for short, has been pushing writers to conquer their fears and overcome writer’s block. The NaNoWriMo challenge consists of writing a 50,000 word novel during the month of November. 

Having fostered a plethora of bestsellers like Merissa Meyer’s Cinder, C. L. Clarke’s The Unbroken, and Erin Morgenstern’s The Night Circus, the non-profit organisation was highly regarded by readers and writers alike for nearly 25 years. 

Unfortunately, all sweets must eventually sour. Just last September, as I was preparing for the challenge myself, NaNoWriMo was ruthlessly attacked on all social media platforms. Overnight, the organisation found itself with authors stepping down from their positions as board members, sponsors retracting, and the public’s back sternly turned on them.

The major online discourse was caused by its stance on A.I. use. NaNoWriMo stated that it does not condemn the use of generative A.I. for writing, and believes doing so is “ableist” and “classist.” The organisation explained that artificial intelligence can be a useful tool in providing free accommodations and editing for writers in need. The NaNoWriMo team supposedly attempted to bring awareness to disabled writers and writers unable to hire an editor for their work, in which case, artificial intelligence would be an easy and free solution. While the sentiment presented by NaNoWriMo is noble, the plagiarism and creativity issue surrounding A.I. far outweighs the possible benefits it may offer. Writing is the expression of one’s own ideas, using one’s own words. It is the unique way Oscar Wilde, Margaret Atwood, or Toni Morrisson string together meticulously chosen words that marks their identity as writers. To write is to breathe life into words; A.I. steals words, rehashes them, and spits them out. 

According to CBC’s article on the subject, Cass Morris, former NaNoWriMo board member, says that using artificial intelligence as a writing tool “takes away the joy of discovery in writing, of finding within yourself the thing that you most want to say.” 

In their following statement regarding the situation, the NaNoWriMo team explains what prompted their original one and its intended message: “In early August, debates about AI on our social media channels became vitriolic. It was clear that the intimidation and harassment we witnessed were causing harm within our community of writers […] Taking a position of neutrality was not an abandonment of writers’ legitimate concerns about AI […] 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.” While this marks a good point in theory, the organisation’s partnership with an A.I. self-editing tool in the weeks preceding this controversy does not reflect its neutrality claim, and by taking a “neutral” stance by not condemning AI, they in fact support it, allowing its use in their challenge, reflecting the way “neutral” stances end up favouring power. Furthermore, if a non-profit organisation that aims to uplift authors and their creativity doesn’t belong in this discussion, then who does? 

Let down by NaNoWriMo’s actions, writers suggest to continue participating in the challenge without documenting it on the NaNoWriMo website. This partial boycott allows writers to keep engaging with this important part of the writing community while also protesting the organisation’s “neutrality” towards artificial intelligence.

Many writers worry about the safety of their writing that lies in the hands of NaNoWriMo, despite there not being any current proof of it being used for A.I. training. The concern does, however, still weigh on the writing community, who fear for their words’ future as – thanks to NaNoWriMo’s Young Writers Program – multiple schools encourage their students to write on its platform. Children are known to speak the truth in its crudest yet most innocent form. If our children’s words, voices, and artistic identities aren’t protected in the name of “neutrality,” what does it forebode for the future?