Raw LLM Responses

The reality of the situation is that you can't tell when AI has been a part of the writing process. And when you can tell, it's usually because the result is flawed in some noticeable way anyways, so almost certainly isn't winning competitions. So, I would understand a stance like "there's no reasonable way in which we could consistently enforce a ban on AI tools". Accepting a sponsor for an AI writing tool may be fine, _if_ it's just a tool for the mechanics of writing and _if_ it is trained on data owned or properly licensed to the creators of the tool -- I don't know enough about the state of ProWritingAid at the time of the original sponsorship to have an informed opinion on that. The second this started encroaching on AI _generation_ and anti-bigotry rhetoric was lifted to defend it, this became unsalvageable. I say this as someone who often does use AI tools to assist in my writing. Because I'm not a creative writer, I'm a technical writer (or rather, a technical professional who must sometimes write technical documents). My job isn't to be original, but to be clear and comprehensible to as wide an audience as possible, and sometimes AI tools can help me to achieve that. I have colleagues who are not native English speakers, but who are nonetheless forced to write in English, and they benefit from such tools even more. But there's a huge difference between using AI to assist in an incidental part of you job that cannot be done by another person, and using AI to sidestep the creative the process in a creative competition. There is a line to be found here, but Nano went so far beyond it that it's insulting to the very people they claim to be defending.