OK, this is a twist in the NaNoWriMo controversy I didn't see coming: apparently the "criticizing AI is classist/ableist" line was a bridge too far *even for the 'AI' company*.
@pteryx I'm howling
I don't want to be a "reply guy," but let me just drop this here as an alternative for anyone who may be interested.
@pteryx Wow, I didn't think they had bridges that were too far.
@jbowen To be entirely fair, this seems to have been a company that produced a grammar checker and then had a "pivot to AI", rather than something that was founded as an "AI" startup in the first place. So they might not be quite as deeply invested in the whole mythology.
I've heard anecdotes that the "pivot to AI" has significantly worsened their product, too, so that might factor in. Maybe they'll abandon it as soon as investors stop being obsessed with it?
@pteryx '"We believe that writers’ concerns about the role of Al are valid and deserve thoughtful consideration,” Banks wrote in an email.'
...or did he?
@essjax If you want to accuse The Washington Post of fabrication, please take it up with them.
@pteryx I guess the backlash is pretty bad on that one, huh...
It might have to do with describing users of AI as "creatively disabled" that they didn't like.
@pteryx Utterly incredible. What is even going on over there?
@pteryx is criticism of AI inherently ableist or classist?
Who the heck is saying that?
@colinstu The NaNoWriMo organization said it this weekend, and the story has exploded.
Needless to say, actual disabled and poor people have objected loudly to this statement, they've lost at least one sponsor, and by now the story has made it to news outlets like Wired.
EDIT: They've changed the post to erase their screwup by now. Here's the original for reference:
@colinstu Basically, the context for the OP is that it appeared clear that NaNo's statement was made because of one of their sponsors, which used to be a useful grammar checker but made a pivot to "AI". But now even *that* sponsor has said that the statement went too far...
@amin @colinstu It's possible, but it's a stronger statement than I'd expect if it were completely dishonest. Usually the "we-condemn-this-but-not-really" sorts of statements have significant tells throughout that even excerpts of this size would show.
I read a statement this strong from an "AI" company as actually meaning, "I'm sure poor and disabled people could benefit from our product, but implying that they can't write without it is going too far."
@pteryx This just gets weirder the more I am seeing. Toss some water on me and wake me up; this whole nightmare is getting too bizarre even for me