[DazWilkin]

I think there's no issue with permitting writers to use AI tools to participate in NaNoWriMo.

I've participated a three (or four?) times in the annual NaNoWriMo and completed twice.

When I first participated, I attended a group to help understand how to approach the project. In the group there were several aspiring writers. The group continued after the year's project began and many of the people who most wanted to be writers were already struggling to meet the daily writing quota (so that they'd reach the goal after 30 days).

I think any tools that people use that help them complete NaNoWriMo are fine. People must live with their own decisions and, if the tools write the majority of their submission, that's their decision.

Other people using AI tools doesn't impact my ability to complete the year's NaNoWriMo. It doesn't affect me in any way.

The group leader told us about a tool that she used that would begin erasing characters if she stopped typing for longer than about 5 seconds during her daily write. That's a tool I wouldn't ever use :-)

[brendoelfrendo]

One person using generative AI doesn't impact anyone else's ability to complete the challenge, but it does seem weird to officially condone using AI and partner with an AI company. If the goal of the challenge is to write 50,000 words in 30 days, and you use an AI to write most of that... then you didn't meet that goal. Like, at all. We should be honest that telling an AI to write a story and writing one yourself are very different things. Anyone who writes knows that having an idea is the easy part, and most of the work happens in turning the idea into the story. Writing to meet an aggressive quota like in NaNoWriMo takes work and discipline. I used to like NaNoWriMo for promoting writing as a creative exercise and motivating people to write and finish a project, but the main criticism has always been that pushing people to set potentially unrealistic goals can also be discouraging or encourage bad practices. Saying "AI is fine if it helps you meet the quota" kind of doubles-down on NaNoWriMo as a word factory and misses the point of its own challenge.

[throwmeoutplzdo]

And you could argue the competition is about creating meaning and orchestrating a story rather than individual words.

Even if you use AI to actually produce the individual words and still edit the text afterwards to match your meaning, first of all it might be more work than just writing it yourself, and second, it's basically like having a partner to throw around ideas with.

So sure, you might be cheating yourself, and at the end I don't think AI is going to produce anything of such enormous original value that it would in itself threaten the value of, say, literature.

At the end of the day the results are what count to me. If you're using AI in a disciplined way to help you learn to write better, then all the best to you.

[brendoelfrendo]

The goal of the competition is to show that disciplined and consistent work can turn an idea into a finished first-draft of a story. You are competing against no one but yourself (and the clock), and if you cheat by using AI to write for you, then you are cheating no one but yourself.

> first of all it might be more work than just writing it yourself

I mean, that sounds like a great reason to not use AI, and if true, kind of defeats the purpose of condoning its use in the first place.

[dialup_sounds]

You're making this weird assumption that the only use of AI is to literally write the story for you, but 1) that's wrong and 2) nobody is actually suggesting or encouraging that for NaNoWriMo.