Raw LLM Responses

I agree that nanowrimo’s statement is disingenuous, poorly worded, and poorly edited (oh, the irony). However, I do think there is a conversation to be had about the use of AI as an accessibility tool. I do not think it is accurate to say that accommodations in the writing space are completely unrelated to AI. The story about the author with Alzheimer’s is actually a good example of this. Dictation software relies on AI. Is it reasonable to criticize this author for using a software program instead of hiring someone to dictate to or finding a volunteer? Is his behavior unethical? I acknowledge that there is a clear difference between having generative AI write for you and using a dictation software, however, the distinction between generative and non-generative AI is not always so clear cut. Programs like Grammarly and the spellcheckers built-in to word processors rely on some form of AI. Is using these programs to check for grammar, punctuation, and spelling mistakes unethical? What about when these programs suggest ways to reword your sentences? If I am having writer’s block and ask chat gtp for creative writing prompts and am inspired by one of the suggestions, is that unethical? When does the use of AI start to become “generative”? I agree that many uses of AI are clearly unethical (ex. using AI to write scripts for a TV show instead of hiring a writer). I agree that the way that many of these AI models are trained is theft, and for that reason, I do not think nanowrimo should have ever accepted the sponsorship. I also think there is more gray area in the conversation about AI at large. It can be an extremely useful and powerful accessibility tool inside and outside of the writing sphere and I wish companies developing these technologies were behaving ethically. In sum, nanowrimo is definitely in the wrong here. Their “concern” about AI and accessibility is disingenuous. However, there is a conversation to be had about AI, accessibility, and the limits of ethical AI usage.