AI alarmism
The hot topic in the writing sphere of late is NaNoWriMo’s decision to allow AI-assisted fiction into their “competition.” Setting aside that 50,000 words is not a novel, it’s been irritating to see how many writers are crapping their pants over this decision.
The most common inaccurate statement these alarmists make is that generative AI is a plagiarism mechanism. It isn’t. It can’t plagiarize unless it’s expressly directed. And given the proliferation of actual plagiarism in the ebook sphere, raising a ruckus over imaginary plagiarism seems like a waste of energy.
Anti-AI zealots complain that writing with AI assistance isn’t the same as “real” writing. Well, guess what? If you’ve ever used Grammarly or ProWritingAid to edit your work, you’re using a kind of AI. Did that make your content less genuine? Of course not, and anyone saying so doesn’t fully grasp reality.
Also, I’d like to point out that some prominent authors — cough James Patterson cough — don’t write their stuff at all! They come up with ideas and have someone else do the work. Where’s the outrage?
These people complaining don’t know how the technology works, are utterly incapable of contextualizing said technology and will be the first to be left in the dust by that technology’s progress. Generative AI is not going away, regardless of how much whining happens, and the sooner people realize it’s just another tool in a suite of tools, the happier and more productive they’ll be.