accessibility over purity
Inspired by Loren's post, National Novel Writing Month faces backlash over allowing AI: What to know.
NaNoWriMo's decision to allow full use of AI seems reasonable.
Whether AI use is unfettered or limited to assistance, what evidence disqualifies writers who lie about complying with the rules? Besides that, condemning AI might unintentionally encourage its use. Censorship, cancellations, and bans often advertise their targets better than apathy does. Time is spent better cherishing what we love instead, like more budding novelists and published novels.
Disqualifying writers using AI based on accessibility concerns seems unfair. Preserving writing assistance and accessibility via AI for people with disabilities, injuries, or socioeconomic disadvantages outweighs the pursuit of artistic purity. Writers follow various reasons for participating in NaNoWriMo. For some, those reasons might not include purity at all.
Why deter writers from experimenting with AI anyhow? They can find value from the creative skills and techniques they practice or learn about through it. You can argue that lazy writers hurt themselves and don't deserve to win. However, if their work doesn't harm anyone and readers prefer their work for whatever reasons, should they be stopped?
Collaboration, like competition, has fueled innovation throughout history. Arguments about how AI or human collaboration are unbalanced miss whether writers and readers care for that. Any particular writer might not care for this potential dilemma. Some are too busy folding insights from experiences with others into their work. Some are too excited seeing how they can succeed with NaNoWriMo while following the rules, when they couldn't have beforehand.
People don't always compete to be the best. Even among those that do, each person's definition of best can differ. For example, powerful technology pushes performance and capability while lesser technology focuses on compactness and efficiency. Both propel technology forward. Writers might not find calls to limit either extreme reasonable.
Writers have unique abilities and preferences. Spin-off contests could foster spaces for divergent approaches, abilities, and preferences. Think about the Paralympics, Special Olympics, or sports leagues where doping is allowed. Creating a level playing field lets players not only push for authentic glory, but other benefits based on contest guidelines.
Multiple writing contests can compare various metrics - quality, efficiency, AI assistance impacts, etc. - to the NaNoWriMo benchmark. This exploration mutually benefits novelists, AI enthusiasts, and enthusiasts of other related fields too.
Contests welcoming AI use can also adopt different stakes, which further incentivize prospective AI cheaters to compete amongst their peers instead. NaNoWriMo can then maintain their integrity for writers and readers preferring human-only writing.
Creating more arenas encourages greater participation, competition, and group mobility. Those drive collective progress whether through athletics, storytelling, or any other form of human expression.
Constraining everyone to a uniform ability level hinders innovation. Instead, let's experiment with different approaches, capitalize on their strengths, and push humanity forward.