Last year, they were in very hot water for how they handled allegations of grooming and sexual misconduct on their forums. They offered a response, adjusted, adjusted it further, and were reactive to what is a very dicey situation. A lot of things have been speculated about NaNo since then and once again they find themselves in hot water with another problematic situation, this time sharing their stance on the use of AI. They emitted their opinion and have already started adjusting and I can't help but feel like they're treading water again.
I’d seen the buzz doing the rounds so I read NaNoWrimo's stance on AI, which you can read here. In the last year, the conversation on AI has been increasing as has been the overall use of it. I've seen positive applications of AI technology in certain circles and I'm all for using it ethically...however, the prevalent use of AI as a cost-cutting measure is abundantly clear in countless industries and ignoring that is ignorant at best.
Last year there was the actor's strike because studios wanted to pay an initial paltry sum and then use your likeness in perpetuity. With the level of shafting actors and creators get, this is an additional slap in the face. The strike was a no-brainer. During the last two years, the amount of "digital artists" who have started “offering their services” by using generative AI to sell results of prompts has multiplied several times over.
Working in advertising I'm seeing the use of AI continue to increase at all levels. I'm seeing applications where I see the benefit and I see others where it is a bit worrying. Working as a copywriter in a creative department, one of my tasks is to come up with concepts or texts to either sell, convince, or communicate.
In addition, another big chunk of what I do is translating and transcreating.
Translating is just the ask of taking one message from one language and effectively transposing the same message to another.
Transcreation is making adjustments to make sure it's culturally relevant. So, for a bare-bones example, in one you try and figure out how to translate the term cherry slushy while with transcreation you go a step beyond and figure out if you need to even change the object so that people can relate to the core idea and not get distracted by what a cherry slushy is.
I've seen bilingual catastrophes since I was an English mentor in college over 20 years ago and I still see occasions where people use a text translator, copy-paste, and do NOT proofread or fail to do a proper quality assessment.
THIS is one of my main problems with AI and certain tools, i.e. people getting lazy, complacent, or not doing their due diligence. What I've also noticed is certain questions in conversations with internal and external clients that make me raise an eyebrow...
I'm human and not perfect and if I see a preference in a term or how to phrase something that is equal to what was written originally but sets someone at ease, the odds are in favor of me being OK with that change as long as it makes sense. I do this so people see that I take their opinion onboard and that I welcome people to challenge what was written to get to the best possible option and yes, a change in a word can make a big difference.
But some questions prompt me to use either Google Translate or ChatGPT to verify a gut feeling.
Working so long in communications, I sometimes get a peculiar feeling of where a question is coming from, and when I take the original English and pass it through either Google Translate, Linguee, or ChatGPT (among other options), I have often found what I'm being suggested. Sometimes the option works and sometimes it doesn't, and actually, quite often it doesn't work so you need to know why something doesn't work to defend the original text or look for a third option. Here is one example where AI technology is problematic and I'm being ultra-specific because it can be that specific.
I see the use in this example and you can make a case that it's trying to make sure that the work was done correctly or trying to give people tools to verify work that's being done rather than just take our word for it that it's OK. What's curious is that humans are questioned more often than the results of a prompt or at least it sometimes feels that way.
I've also seen people say they know another language when they clearly don't. From written examples to casting calls where someone thinks that “fake it until you make it” also applies to language. This is why when we do casting calls for Spanish ads, I worry when we get from certain cities, but more on that later.
When it comes to design, I've seen many other companies using AI heavily, because the due date for deliverables is too aggressive to do X or Y thing without using every single tool in your arsenal.
And things are delivered.
And the client sees that they can be delivered.
And this brings additional issues.
The creative process is ever more rushed. Btw, I'm not saying I haven't been rushed before and haven't done crazy turnaround times. In a job way back, I knew to develop 3 entire creative ad campaigns with Print, Radio, Out of Home, TV Scripts, and digital adaptations within 3 days and then have to present with a fresh face.
This
I
Shall
Never
Recommend
But we did it.
And we did it well.
But I always wonder what we could have done with an extra day or two. Maybe cock around? Or maybe a better idea could have come about. Both are possible.
The problem is that once you deliver something in a crazy time frame, that becomes the new bar. The use of AI and how I've seen timetables impacted also raises a flag.
Clients want more work, quicker, but at the same price, or why not ask for it cheaper? Within this there are a bevy of topics to discuss, I know, but for this case, let's focus on delivering something fast and that becoming a problem. What if you can't deliver? What if another project overlaps?
None of this is the client's problem.
They have a need (though often it's a want more than a need) and you have to deliver.
Period.
But hiring more people is not an option.
So, you rely on any and all tools to get the job done.
Btw, quality and strategy often suffer but this isn't a priority to some clients. I can't say many or all, but none? That I cannot say either.
Above are just some of the examples of how AI is impacting the day-to-day life of companies and I'm not even mentioning customer service, research, proposal drafting, hiring processes, tech, and beyond. When you turn back the lens to creative work, meaning books, music, art, film, and more, there are more problems to be had, many of which a lot of people standing to make money wouldn't mind ignoring.
NaNoWrimo's stance kind of hints that they can't full-fledged say no or cancel the use of AI or any technology. They have since slightly adjusted their message to include the paragraph that's highlighted in this screenshot.
So, is AI a big umbrella technology? Yes.
Is its use being regulated? No or it’s just starting.
Are people taking advantage of this? Yes.
Beyond clicking a box that says you didn't use AI to generate artwork or content, are large companies like Amazon doing anything to check for the use of AI? Unclear.
Are people using AI to develop manuscripts, covers, translations, and other creative materials? Yes. We don't know to what extent, but it's been happening and will continue to happen and with some worrying results.
Some people might make a case that generative AI can’t produce quality work. However, in 2022 the winner of an art contest won using AI generated art.
Also in the last 2 years, it’s more common to see digital artists struggle to find freelance work. Dismissing any correlation seems irresponsible. You can make a case for some applications. However, other applications are extremely concerning because the intent of companies to streamline processes, cut costs, and reduce personnel is blatant. In the creative spectrum, the impact is also being felt...and it's not to make things better. Quicker and more efficient? Yes. But better…that depends on what you mean by better.
When it comes to books, working with artists who don't use AI and working in tandem is an option, especially if you want a unique cover that breaks through the clutter and that can stand out from the shelf. There are also options for people without the means to pay for a cover to develop simple covers for books.
In my experience, I’ve used Canva and I’ve done so without using their AI tools, instead using simple elements to capture the essence of the book. When I’ve needed something more complicated, I’ve set aside a budget and hired illustrators and artists. Below are some of my books.
Books 1 and 2, I made those covers.
Book 3 was designed by Melissa Lettis
Book 4 was designed by Karelys Luna
NaNoWrimo wants to make a case for using Ai to develop covers to even the field...I disagree with this stance because AI as used in this scenario is generative AI which feeds off original and copyrighted work. I would suggest keeping it simpler or looking for more cost-effective options, like pre-made covers instead of using generative AI. But that's my opinion. I say this because if you save money and pay for the right person, that's doable and if you put in the time and effort, you may still get a decent to great cover. If you also find the right person, then how much is it worth it to use the right person for the job? For the Human Cycle, I worked with José Arocho and he was able to navigate the ask amazingly well and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Some people may say that I used stock images or vector illustrations from a website to make my simpler covers. This is true, but I read the usage rights and the images and illustrations/elements I've chosen were either clear to use, or I paid for their use.
That's very different from going to AI platforms, typing in a prompt, downloading the result, and putting your name on the artwork without researching anything. If you choose to do this because regulations aren't set in place yet, that's your choice, but know that you may be served with a Cease & Desist sooner rather than later. And again, it's your choice.
My choice is to work with artists when I have the means and to do simple covers when I do not. My choice is to also work with editors from here on out because I've seen the value of their work and have found options of people I trust and prefer that to depending solely on software.
AI offers many murky waters to navigate and will impact every aspect of life in the foreseeable future. Skynet analogies will come full force and you will have choices to make. For me, I shall keep writing by hand and transcribing because it's part of my process. I shall also keep working directly with artists because I see my covers and I don't see any like them...and that makes me happy.
At the end of the day, if you have to spin something to not feel bad about your decision, then what does that say about what you're doing?
That's for you to answer.
Peace, love, and maki rolls.
