The National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) nonprofit has maintained a 25-year legacy of empowering novelists to reach their goals. Earlier this year, a statement condemned criticism of generative AI use in novel writing. As a result, this approach to content creation has alienated a large constituent of its audience.
The controversy has opened Pandora’s box of unrealized fears surrounding the future of content creation ethics. From amateur writers to bestselling authors, writers have clashed with the organization over the prospective future of the writing craft.
The NaNoWriMo AI Controversy: A Turning Point for Content Creation
The NaNoWriMo-AI controversy was ignited by the organization’s press release, which criticized AI dissidents as “classist and ableist.” NaNoWriMo vaguely insinuates that condemning using generative AI, whether in whole or in part, to create novels is bigotry. The organization even went so far as to say such criticism is discrimination against writers with disabilities.
Such claims sparked debate from disabled writers, who felt the statement broadly misrepresented them. The debate became so heated that it signaled a dynamic shift between writers and their supportive communities.
At its core, the NaNoWriMo controversy developed from ethics concerns. The organization said that taking a neutral stance protects participants from online harassment. However, writers were incensed and discouraged by the stance’s impact on the craft’s moral integrity.
Participants believed that the challenge’s 50,000-word goal was essential. They argued that using generative AI would give some an unfair drafting advantage.
NaNoWriMo’s Reasons Explained
In a September 11 follow-up, the organization expressed that online “intimidation and harassment” of community members prompted the statement. With this follow-up statement, the NaNoWriMo team urged its members to view its position as a “statement of neutrality.”
The statement had the opposite impact of what its authors originally intended. This reaction was seen among a large demographic of Writer’s Month participants, or WriMos, as they are affectionately known.
NaNoWriMo Called Out Over AI Sponsors
Some had a visceral reaction to being generally accused of participating in classism and ableism. Others pointed out the organization’s perceived hypocrisy. They correlated the statement with the fact that this year’s challenge is sponsored by the AI writing tool ProWritingAid.
Writers with disabilities have come forward to express concerns about the statement, making a general sweep in speaking for them. These writers called attention to the fact that NaNoWriMo sacrificed important discussion points on the ethics of machine-assisted writing by taking a general approach to the issue.
Writers Feeling Left Behind By NaNoWriMo Statement
Some of these writers, in particular, felt that the statement overlooked their need to be granted equality and autonomy in challenge participation.
These writers expressed concern that the so-called neutrality of NaNoWriMo’s statement failed to detail any ethical approach to machine-prompted text. Participants worry this will result in a novel creation that was entirely from machine prompts, giving some participants and prize contestants unfair advantages. For example, the challenge requires the participating writer to reach a monthly goal of penning 50,000 words, the same word volume as “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck.
Public Reaction and Writer Perspectives
Wired recalled how once NaNoWriMo took a “quirky and homegrown” approach to novelization. With a previous character defined by being different, participating writers have said they feel betrayed. The organization had lost credibility for failing to provide nuanced, homegrown approaches to using AI for novelization. Previously, it had offered such guidance for other novel-writing methods before these tools existed.
YouTuber Daniel Greene argues this stance deepens the “quagmires of controversy” already surrounding NaNoWriMo’s parent organization.
AI and Creativity: Where Do We Draw the Line?
The communication failure between NaNoWriMo and its participants can be traced back to a misunderstanding. This misunderstanding involved generative AI’s relationship to many WriMos who read the blanket statement. Generative AI itself wasn’t the concept they objected to.
Many responding writers agreed that generative AI is a good assistant to some writers, helping correct grammar or construct ideas. Responding WriMo’s agreed that, in general, participating writers use these tools for polish.
Worries About Human Erasure in Creative Pursuits
At its core, the concern about generative AI blanket use stems from an unrealized fear of human erasure in the writing process. Participants feel a sense of fatalism, spurred by many experts on artificial intelligence’s advancement. They worry that their novels will never truly achieve the level of human accomplishment that classic literature did due to machine intervention.
By taking a neutral stance on AI to prevent online bullying, NaNoWriMo seemed to concede that generative AI will erase the human element of storytelling. It also implied that writers’ use of machine-delivered material should be welcomed and encouraged in the future. Writers wonder where this leaves them when a creative organization opts out of the hard questions about writing and creativity.
Boundaries For Content Creation Ethics Needed
Establishing some guidelines is in order. Defining boundaries is key to understanding where machines enhance human creativity and content creation. Equally important is recognizing when the machine starts to dominate imagination and stifle the writer’s freedom of expression.
Writers feel that an explorer’s muscles have to be stretched somewhere. When one considers the use of generative AI as similar to a mobility aid, its presence is a great equalizer. Without a definition of its use as a tool, machine-controlled creativity becomes paralytic.
The Role of AI in the Future of Professional Content Creation
Imaginative works aren’t the only modes of written work that are cast in a shadow of uncertainty. If anything, the stakes of generalized generative AI use rise in the professional content creation setting.
Quality Issues With AI-Generated Content Creation
The inception of AI-crafted content has led to fears of industry erasure for professional content creation teams. The assumption that generative AI equals human authorship has undermined copywriters and SEO bloggers. Many marketing teams wrongly believe AI has the same writing capacity as humans.
That’s an incorrect assumption simply because AI hasn’t reached a level where it can check the facts of what it generates. To this point, the University of Maryland has prepared an entire library guide around fact-checking AI-written content.
Beyond inaccuracies, however, generative AI can only be trained to reflect patterns in human-crafted prompts. The quality of the prompt proposed to the machine will determine, in part, the quality of the text it produces.
Because AI-generated text borrows from results it finds on the internet, it can often fail plagiarism scans. David Gerwitz, a writer with ZDNet, tested plagiarism scanners in August and found they are “dramatically better” at detecting AI-written content than previous tests.
Quality Assurance in Human Maintenance
Without human intervention, AI-assisted prompts become oversimplified or generically automated in the interest of time and savings. Deep dives evaporate when written content is treated as nothing more than an online garnish. In this environment, videos and AI-generated images are viewed as the main course of more important content.
Generic automation reduces written content to informational nutrition. One could compare this to stripping the value of content from a three-course meal to saturated lettuce. Replacing meaningful industry insights with keyword filler is a disrespectful disservice to loyal customers.
Lessons for Content Creators: Navigating the Post-NaNoWriMo Landscape
The growing influence of artificial intelligence calls for professional writers and novelists to take deliberate steps to secure their relevance. Writers have been left hanging by the march of progress. They’ve been made to feel as if they, in general, are unimportant. Moving forward, writers must realize their value and express it to other human managers of marketing or media spaces to communicate the stakes and restore trust.
A NaNoWriMo Exodus
In the same YouTube post above, Deans explained that even long-term WriMo participants are choosing to leave the challenge. Many are seeking new avenues to push writers in different ways. Writers need these new sub-communities that enforce a sense of standard and encourage an environment of healthy challenge.
Creative challenges are healthy and not barriers to creativity when they stress the importance of the human spirit in the writing process. Challenges produce the opposite effect that the NaNoWriMo statement seemed to suggest. Human creativity flowers when stress is reduced, and innovative thinking is fostered, researchers with the American Psychological Association found.
Writer communities are encouraged to promote a standard that makes classic literature feats impressive. By doing so, these communities create holistically better writers with healthy approaches to creativity under deadline.
Rebuilding Trust in Human Content Creation
There have always been highly capable human writers and those who struggled long before generative AI existed.
Recognize the Intrinsic Value of Writers
The idea is to remind these writers who they are and what their craft means to society. By establishing good support strategies among peers, content creators can elevate the quality and legacy of the profession as a whole.
Establish New Writer Support Systems
Writer organizations have been called on by the writers they represent not to cheapen the triumph of member achievements. Whether they convey a meaningful message about the human experience or settle for a bland replacement of creative anecdotes by machines will shape natural selection. The outcome will depend on the path chosen.
For better or worse, as a direct result of the AI-steered controversy, the days of NaNoWriMo have been numbered, as more writer micro-groups, including this Reddit forum, have called for the organization’s extinction.
Recognizing the needs and establishing guidance for writers is one-half of the battle to come from the controversy. Next, professional content creators will need to reach a consensus on how best to leverage artificial intelligence. They must also establish controls over its use for optimal results.
Leveraging AI For Better Outcomes
Writers can leverage the benefits of AI-assisted tools and generative AI to improve content creation outcomes. Established boundaries lend themselves to a reimagining of what AI can yield and how it can advance content creation.
The No Plagiarism Ground Rule in Content Creation
With AI’s growing presence, applying plagiarism prevention rules is a necessary standard. Plagiarism tools, like those tested by Gerwitz, must scan all AI-generated content thoroughly. Making this a nonnegotiable ground-rule condition can encourage the fair use of any AI tools in their proper place as writing aids and not writer replacements.
Thinking of AI as a Structural Agent
One of the common struggles of writing, particularly for student creatives, is learning how to construct thoughts into a logical flow. In this aspect, users can prompt AI to generate well-crafted outlines.
To this end, the popular grammar checker service Grammarly has already created an AI Outline Generator, taking steps to encourage healthy adaptive behaviors for these tools.
For example, you might use a prompt like, “Write an outline for my novel about a character called Zoey who becomes friends with a dragon.” This prompt is useful because it can help amateurs critique their novel’s plot, checking pacing and structure.
The University of Carolina at Charlotte has also created a library guide explaining how to use generative AI for “reverse outlining.” Reverse outlining is the act of submitting content to a generative AI such as ChatGPT and asking the AI to outline what you’ve written. The university suggests this method is acceptable for checking the flow and substance of human-generated work. It helps the author identify areas where the structure needs improvement.
Paving the Way For Meaningful Content Creation
By imposing a code of ethics on the writer-AI transaction, writing organizations are ordaining a future of meaningful content creation. That means a better legacy for the content craft today, coupled with higher-quality innovation as generative AI itself reaches maturity.
As professional writing support groups outline ways to leverage AI constructively, they show confidence in the future of the writing craft. This approach reinforces their belief in writing’s enduring value. Ultimately, science observes that this partnership between humans and machines could lead to a boost in human creative capacity. If done writing, a healthy interaction between humans and AI in the writing process will enhance rather than erase human expression.
About the Author
Rachel Brooks writes a variety of business articles and website copy on topics such as technology, computer software, marketing, advertising, and more. To learn more about Rachel or to have her write for your brand, sign up for nDash today!