For those who don’t know, November has been known as
National Novel Writing Month for some time and writers of all likes have
participated in NaNoWriMo to finish a novel within a month. It’s spawned two
Camp NaNoWriMo months and I’ve participated in both.
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.
People were not happy.
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.
