Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, Autumn is the best time of year. The early morning dew, the cool nights and warm days, and the leaves along the sidewalks like frightened footprints scurrying into the fog. True, this experience is geographically dependent, but I am not the only one who indulges in this transformative season. There seems to be a widespread desire to inject art into September. It is a wonderful time for writers and writing events. In the 2024 iteration of this inspiring season, NaNoWriMo decided to kick off September with a controversy that rocked the writing world and shines a light on what happens when a push for accessibility and inclusion goes awry. Note: NaNoWriMo provides the context for this piece, but this is not meant to be an indictment of the organization. For transparency, I believe NaNoWriMo should have remained a collective community idea rather than a business. The successes or failures of the non-profit do not interest me.  Photo credit: Brooke Cagle on Unsplash What Happened According to a message released by NaNoWriMo, most recently revised on September 11, 2024, “In early August, debates about AI on our social media channels became vitriolic.” To address this, NaNoWriMo released a statement, the cause of the current controversy. The statements have since been revised or removed. Since this post is not specifically about the controversy, I will only present as much context as needed. Controversy 1 In their heavily revised statement from early September, NaNoWriMo expressed that “NaNoWriMo neither explicitly supports nor condemns any approach to writing, including the use of tools that leverage AI.” This neutral stance does not sit well with many writers who are concerned that generative AI is built on the back of stolen works. Controversy 2 NaNoWriMo claimed that a categorical condemnation of AI is classist and ableist. In the September 11 post, they write, “Our note on ableism and classism was rooted in the desire to point out that, for people in certain circumstances, some forms of AI can be life-changing.” This is the crux of the issue, one that supersedes this organization’s attempts to put out a fire with gasoline.  Photo credit: Wren Meinberg on Unsplash The Problems with Condemning AI (According to NaNoWriMo) Source: Alyssa Matesic’s YouTube video, “The Latest AI Controversy Shaking the Book World”, in which she pulls quotes from a now-deleted section of NaNoWriMo’s statements. “Classism. Not all writers have the financial ability to hire humans to help at certain phases of their writing. For some writers, the decision to use AI is a practical not an ideological one. The financial ability to engage a human for feedback and review assumes a level of privilege that not all community members possess.” “Ableism. Not all brains have same [sic] abilities and not all writers function at the same level of education or proficiency in the language in which they are writing. Some brains and ability levels require outside help or accommodations to achieve certain goals. The notion that all writers “should” be able to perform certain functions independently or [sic] is a position that we disagree with wholeheartedly. There is a wealth of reasons why individuals can’t “see” the issues in their writing without help.” “General Access Issues. All of these considerations exist within a larger system in which writers don’t always have equal access to resources along the chain. For example, underrepresented minorities are less likely to be offered traditional publishing contracts, which places some, by default, into the indie author space, which inequitably creates upfront cost burdens that authors who do not suffer from systematic discrimination may have to incur [sic].” Typos aside, we can see why this was hastily deleted. In the September 11 post, they apologized for their views (expressed above) being poorly communicated and not accurately reflecting their views. Whether to believe that or not is for you to decide. Good Intentions? Bad Execution. Setting politics aside, the fact that inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility (IDEA) has become more mainstream is a net positive. It is a net positive to recognize that people exist, and that if you are selling a product or service to someone, your messaging should reflect the breadth of your audience. Being aware of your language, and the barriers faced by your demographic shows a sign of humanity that is, again, a net positive. However, with the rise of IDEA, there are drawbacks, beyond the rise of the “anti-woke”. The relevant drawback here is x washing. Whether green, pink, or rainbow, x washing is when companies latch on to a movement (in these cases, environmental, women’s equality, or 2SLGBTQIA) to sell their products at a premium. IDEA doesn’t have a colour attached to it, but what NaNoWriMo has done smells of IDEA washing. If we want to be cynical, we can say, “NaNoWriMo messed up in their original stance on AI and is using IDEA as a shield. To criticize their stance is to be ableist and classist, and no one wants to be part of that group, so don’t criticize them.” If we take them at their best, we can say, “NaNoWriMo took a stance on AI because they actually believe that AI removes the barriers identified in their statement.” Either way, they are wrong. Sort of.  Photo credit: Adrien Converse on Unsplash I agree with parts of their statement. There are financial, accessibility, and racial barriers in the publishing world. AI can be used in very specific, targeted ways to overcome some of these barriers. But to say that AI can solve classism or ableism in writing is to say that a single ramp removes all barriers faced by wheelchair users. It’s absurd. Targeted Accessibility Alt text allows those who use screen readers to have a smoother reading experience when there are images. Captions allows the deaf and hard of hearing communities to interact with auditory material. Noise cancelling headphones allows neurodivergent people to help mitigate overstimulation. A live translation app can help a person who does not speak the native language get around. There are plenty of examples, but these are targeted tools to remove a barrier to accessibility. This is how accessibility “should” function. There is a barrier. What is the best tool to overcome it? To claim that you are here to remove ableism by making a blanket statement that AI is neither good or bad (true as that may be) demonstrates that you do not understand ableism. To say that AI can remove the financial barriers writers face demonstrates that you do not know what classism is, or that you do not know what the actual problem is. You are using the terms because they sound nice, and they sound caring, and they may be genuine, but they come from a shallow understanding. Conclusion People are angry with NaNoWriMo because they are “supporting” a platform (generative AI) that is stealing work. People are angry with NaNoWriMo because they didn’t address that fact that those with financial challenges or with disabilities have been writing books long before AI.
I am angry with NaNoWriMo because, as IDEA fights for a space in the mainstream against the vitriol of self-preservation, NaNoWriMo has chosen to validate those who believe that IDEA is hollow. Autumn is a time of transition. Why not take this time to reflect on the idea of inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility: not as a political or marketing tool, but as a fight for the real people who face the myriads of barriers IDEA strives to tear down. Why not take this transitional time to rethink how AI can be used: not as a punching-bag for all the ills of the world or a saviour, but as a limited tool that can, when targeted properly, be used to confront the barriers. September is a time of art, but more than that, a time of artistic community. When you see blanket statements about classism or ableism, strive to focus on the specific people and judge the merits of the claim based on that. This is how we reconnect rather than divide. And, as always, Thanks for reading.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
RSS Feed