The Modern Brutus’ Dagger: AI In Creative Industries

By Sophia Parmele

Writers speak out against technology that threatens their livelihood

In recent years, there has been a plethora of speculation that humans would ultimately

be the creators of their own demise. Ethical concerns with topics in environmental sustainability and the rise of modern technology has led many to wonder about the implications of human development and if our own creations will eventually aid in the eradication of what makes us human. These concerns have become increasingly prevalent in creative communities as of late.

With the rise of AI, modern artists, creators, and writers find themselves in ethical debates of AI’s uses and potential threats to the creative industry. For writers, a popular non-profit is under scrutiny after releasing a statement that seemingly supports the same technology that threatens to overtake the livelihood of its users. NaNoWriMo is a non-profit organization known for hosting creative writing events to inspire writers from all over the world, most notably the National Novel Writing Month contest in which writers participate in a challenge to write 50,000 or more words for an upcoming novel within the month of November. NaNoWriMo recently released a statement that initially stated that AI can be a useful tool for those who are disabled or from marginalized communities who would otherwise not have access to the inner circle of the publishing industry. However, after severe backlash, the statement was then amended in which they claimed that there are “bad actors in the AI space,” but that they find “the categorical condemnation for AI to be problematic.” 

Although this isn’t the first controversy NaNoWriMo has attracted, it is definitely one of the biggest backlashes against the nonprofit to date. At first glance, the statement could be seen as an attempt to support inclusion for marginalized groups, but with generative AI being a prominent threat against writers, many authors distanced themselves from the organization and took to social media to share their thoughts. Additionally, authors on the nonprofit’s board such as Daniel Jose Older and Maureen Johnson have publicly stepped down after the statement’s release. Older released a statement saying that the organizations “position on AI is vile, craven, and unconscionable.” The issue of AI particularly struck a chord with Older due to his recent discovery that 11 of his works have been used to train AI. Johnson has also posted statements warning writers that NaNoWriMo may be using the works of writers on their platform to train AI, although there is little evidence of this thus far.

Additionally, well known authors who found success in participating in NaNoWriMo have distanced themselves, speaking out against the use of AI in the creative industry. Authors such as Silvia Moreno-Garcia, writer of the popular novel Mexican Gothic, has distanced herself and spoken out against NaNoWriMo’s stance on the use of generative AI.

Even if the purpose was to be inclusive, writers in the disabled community also took offense to the original statement since it almost promotes ableism by inferring that disabled writers need to use technology that steals the work of others to become successful in the publishing industry. Additionally, the AI claiming to help people become published doesn’t make sense since the entire published work would be soulless and pure plagiarism.

It’s also ironic that NaNoWriMo’s purpose is to encourage people to push past the physical and mental barriers to write, so siding with AI goes directly against that statement. Although many writers agree that technology, and even AI, have some benefits, the risks it poses to the writing industry outweigh the benefits. Because of this, even if NaNoWriMo decides to ultimately side with AI, writers agree that the best method to give life purpose to their story is by sitting down and methodically writing one human word at a time.