Embed Notice

@mnl @sam @forestine

The company with which nanowrimo has partnered appears to operate using services built on plagiarism and without consent.

It's possible that I've misunderstood their business model (or that I'm just generally biased against the AI industry as one built on plagiarism and the violation of consent) but I didn't see evidence to the contrary.

NaNoWriMo are defending this decision by pointing out the potential assistive benefits of AI.

I'm not here to argue against those benefits. I've seen people receive a big confidence boost from working with AI assistive tools (and I've seen people get themselves in to a lot of trouble when those AI assistive tools malfunctioned in ways they did not notice, but that's neither here nor there.)

I am here to argue against a creative organization which is focused on highlighting individual creativity promoting a suite of services built on plagiarism, and then hiding behind disability and nuerodiversity to shield themselves from criticism.

If I've misunderstood the organization at hand, and they have managed to build AI powered services that are not centered on plagiarism and the violation of consent, that's wonderful. WriMo, in defending themselves, should perhaps lead with that instead of trying to use people with disabilities and neurodiversity as human shields.

I hope that we can agree that consent is important, plagiarism is generally not great, and NaNoWriMo should center an ethical argument, if they have one, and not use disabled people as a shield from criticism if they do not.