{"id":3572,"date":"2024-09-06T02:00:21","date_gmt":"2024-09-06T10:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/?p=3572"},"modified":"2024-09-06T10:18:16","modified_gmt":"2024-09-06T18:18:16","slug":"free-range-writing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/2024\/09\/06\/free-range-writing\/","title":{"rendered":"Free-Range Writing"},"content":{"rendered":"

The only good thing about NaNoWriMo\u2019s absurd defense of so-called \u201cAI\u201d writing devices is that it was announced at the same time as Ted Chiang explained in the New Yorker <\/i>why large language models are incapable of producing good fiction: \u201cWhy AI Isn\u2019t Going to Make Art\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

Ted is as brilliant a writer of essays as he is of fiction, so that piece is full of excellent observations. I recommend reading the whole thing. One key point he makes is that writing requires making thousands of choices \u2013 maybe ten thousand for a short story \u2013 while the prompts for the writing bots don\u2019t allow anything like that many. As he says:<\/p>\n

The selling point of generative A.I. is that these programs generate vastly more than you put into them, and that is precisely what prevents them from being effective tools for artists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A bot that allowed you to make all the possible choices wouldn\u2019t save you any time, but that\u2019s the only kind that could even conceivably create art. All you can really put in a bot prompt box is your basic idea, and as Ted says about writing:<\/p>\n

Believing that inspiration outweighs everything else is, I suspect, a sign that someone is unfamiliar with the medium.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For those who missed it, NaNoWriMo issued a statement saying that it\u2019s OK for people to use AI when participating in the program where everyone tries to write a novel in the month of November. They even claimed that it is \u201cableist\u201d and \u201cclassist\u201d to prevent people from using AI to write their novels.<\/p>\n

The organization \u2013 which is apparently a 501(c)(3) \u2013 was taken to task on social media by a large number of writers, including some who are disabled and others who don\u2019t come from money. There are, after all, a number of useful tools not powered by LLMs that are useful to the disabled and, as more than one person has pointed out, all you really need to write is a pencil and some paper.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth noting that NaNoWriMo\u2019s supporters include ProWritingAid, an \u201cAI\u201d writing \u201ctoolkit\u201d that costs money.<\/p>\n

Well-known writers have stepped down from any involvement in the organization and, given the fallout, I wonder if NaNoWriMo will survive.<\/p>\n

Just as an aside, most publishers don\u2019t want anything generated by \u201cAI,\u201d so I\u2019m not sure there\u2019s much point in participating using AI if you want to actually publish what you write.<\/p>\n

Plenty of smart people have responded to this nonsense effectively, so I won\u2019t repeat all the things they said. But here\u2019s the thing that gets me that doesn\u2019t directly involve the controversy: Why did people make NaNoWriMo into an organization? Why couldn\u2019t it just be an informal project? <\/p>\n

There are many things in this world that need to be structured in order to function both well and fairly. Writers\u2019 organizations, such as SFWA, allow people to band together to fight for their rights and get benefits, just as an example.<\/p>\n

But NaNoWriMo invites all to participate and doesn\u2019t have any instructors. What the nonprofit organization offers is a way to sign up, set up a profile, apparently get some prompts and recorded pep talks (though I\u2019m pretty sure that some of the writers listed as giving those are furious about the AI stuff and won\u2019t be doing that anymore), find a community if you want one, and earn a certificate. There are apparently moderators who lead groups, but I can\u2019t tell if any of them get paid.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the ability to do all this \u2013 and the hiring of staff to do all this \u2013 that led them to become a 501(c)(3). And it\u2019s the need for sponsors and donations that has led them to partner with an \u201cAI\u201d writing company and compromise the very purpose of the organization.<\/p>\n

After all, the purpose is to get people to actually write. Writing prompts for a chatbot is not the same thing (see what Ted Chiang said).<\/p>\n

Obviously you can do this kind of project on your own without signing up for anything. It is probably very good for some writers to do precisely this. I have gone off by myself for a week at a time to do nothing but write a novel, just as an example.<\/p>\n

What NaNoWriMo gives you is the chance of doing this in community \u2013 kind of like a writers\u2019 retreat, except you don\u2019t have to (or get to) go anywhere \u2013 and a certificate if you meet your goal.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll point out that writers who want to find community with other writers have been doing that for a very long time. These days the online version of community is very easy and accessible. Between social media and online classes and workshops, there are multiple ways to find your writer community and fit into it.<\/p>\n

As for the certificate, that\u2019s kind of like the stickers my piano teacher used to put in my music book to show that I\u2019d learned a piece of music. The certificate isn\u2019t going to get your work published anymore than the accumulated stickers from my piano teacher would have gotten me into Julliard.<\/p>\n

Until all this came out, I didn\u2019t even know that NaNoWriMo was an actual organization. I knew people who participated \u2013 I know a lot of writers \u2013 but I always thought it was informal.<\/p>\n

It seems to me that it could and should have stayed informal.<\/p>\n

Now I say this as someone who advocates strong charters and bylaws for co-ops and other kinds of enterprises. It is my experience that weak structures will cause a project to come crashing down when a problem crops up.<\/p>\n

But not everything people do needs to be an enterprise. If you put together a critique group with other writers, you don\u2019t need to set up a formal organization. You can just decide when and how you\u2019re going to meet, how far in advance people should submit their work, and what the rules are for discussion.<\/p>\n

Right now, I\u2019m involved in four writer-related things. There\u2019s a daily zoom for writing run by a friend where we just show up and write (and check in if we\u2019re on time), two critique groups, and a bimonthly meetup of writers who\u2019ve been at it for awhile and want to discuss business matters and problems.<\/p>\n

None of those are official. Nobody gets paid. There are no sponsors, no donors, no meetings to discuss the business side of the group. I find them all very useful.<\/p>\n

I think NaNoWriMo would have benefited from staying informal. And in fact, I think we need a lot more of that informal community in our lives, both online and in real life.<\/p>\n

I notice people talk a lot about being raised as \u201cfree-range\u201d kids \u2013 that is, kids who went off to do stuff with other kids without supervision. A lot of people tie this to Gen-X, but as with many things, it was around long before those folks came along. It\u2019s more that it stopped being such a thing after that generation was grown.<\/p>\n

Seems to me both kids and adults need a lot more free-range activities and a lot fewer structured ones.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The only good thing about NaNoWriMo\u2019s absurd defense of so-called \u201cAI\u201d writing devices is that it was announced at the same time as Ted Chiang explained in the New Yorker why large language models are incapable of producing good fiction: \u201cWhy AI Isn\u2019t Going to Make Art\u201d Ted is as brilliant a writer of essays […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,18],"tags":[681,793,693],"class_list":["post-3572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-process","category-writing","tag-ai","tag-nanowrimo","tag-ted-chiang"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3572"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3572\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3575,"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3572\/revisions\/3575"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/treehousewriters.com\/wp53\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}