#anti gatekeeping

“Choosing not to read it isn’t a crime like you make it out to be”

I never said it was.

You’re absolutely free to not read AI-assisted fic. That’s always been the baseline in fandom: curate your own experience.

What I push back against is people telling others they shouldn’t write at all, or trying to shame them out of participating.

Those are two different things.

“Writing is supposed to be the fun part… thinking obsessively about characters is the fun part”

That’s true for you.

But not everyone experiences writing the same way.

A lot of people have no shortage of ideas — characters, scenes, entire plots — but struggle with actually putting those thoughts into words. Executive dysfunction, language barriers, fatigue, disability… those are real obstacles.

Using a tool to bridge that gap doesn’t mean they care less about their story. In many cases, it’s the opposite — they care enough to find a way to get it out.

“People hide their usage of AI… why can’t it be the reader’s choice?”

It is the reader’s choice.

No one is forcing you to read anything.

But when people do disclose their use of AI, they often get harassed for it. That creates an environment where honesty is punished and silence is safer.

That’s the problem.

“People like working together… it’s a way to socialize and relate to others.”

That applies to a lot of people — but not everyone.

Not everyone is comfortable sharing ideas. Some people have been judged for their ships or interests. Some write for very niche fandoms where there isn’t a community to collaborate with — assuming there’s a community at all. Not every interest comes with an active fandom space, or one that feels accessible. Some worry about having their ideas taken or dismissed. Some simply prefer to work alone.

And for some, social interaction itself is the barrier.

Collaboration is one way people create. It’s not the only one.

AI doesn’t replace collaboration — it gives an option to people who either can’t access it, or don’t want it.

Both can exist at the same time.

“I’m disabled… but AI writing is lazy and lacks determination”

I want to be careful here, because I hear what you’re saying about your own experience.

But this is where your argument contradicts itself.

You’re asking for your way of writing — slower, more difficult, shaped by disability — to be respected.

At the same time, you’re dismissing other people’s ways of navigating their own limitations as “lazy” or lacking effort.

Disability doesn’t look the same for everyone.

For some, writing slowly is manageable. For others, getting words onto the page at all is the barrier. For others, it’s editing, structuring, or maintaining coherence over long text.

Different people use different tools to bridge those gaps.

Calling that laziness doesn’t just target AI users — it echoes the same language often used against disabled people.

I don’t think that’s your intention.

But that’s the effect.

“Do you even read AI fic? Doesn’t it get repetitive?”

Honestly? I wouldn’t know in most cases — because most writers who use AI don’t disclose it.

I’ve only knowingly read one fic where the author explicitly said they used AI as part of their process. They wrote most of the draft themselves and used AI for editing.

Was it repetitive? Not at all.

The characters had substance. The plot was solid. The setting was well-crafted. You could tell the author cared about what they were writing.

And to be blunt — it was better than many fully human-written fics I’ve read, where:

dialogue gets repetitive

characters feel flat

the plot barely holds together

Not to mention how often I’ve dropped a fic because the lack of editing made it unreadable.

Not everyone has the same level of writing skill.

Some of those writers might turn to AI to make their work clearer, more readable, and more accessible.

And that’s not a bad thing.

At the end of the day, I don’t care what tools someone used.

If the story is good, I’ll read it. And I’ll give kudos to the person who imagined it.

“This entire thing is basically unedited AI slop… I guarantee it’s barely different from the original.”

You don’t actually have a way to verify that.

You’re making a claim about my process based entirely on how the text feels to you. That’s not evidence. That’s assumption.

And it’s exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about: deciding something is “AI” not because you can prove it, but because it fits a narrative.

Also, the blog very openly states what it is: “Built with AI. Run by a human. Rooted in reality.”

AI is part of the process. That’s not hidden.

But “part of the process” doesn’t mean “no editing,” “no input,” or “no human involvement.” It means the final result is shaped and decided by a person.

You don’t have to like that process.

But assuming there is no process just because AI is involved doesn’t reflect how the work is actually made.

“And we’re not even getting into the ecological issues with AI.”

That’s a fair concern — AI does have an environmental cost.

But a few things get lost in how this is usually framed.

Most of the numbers circulating are estimates, not precise measurements. The technology is still evolving, infrastructure varies, and companies don’t disclose everything.

And AI isn’t unique in having a footprint. Streaming, cloud storage, gaming, social media — all rely on the same infrastructure.

If the concern is environmental impact, it has to be applied consistently — not selectively to one tool people already dislike.

And more importantly: this is being used here as an extra justification to dismiss people’s creative work.

Those are two separate issues — and treating them as one doesn’t solve either.

“I’m so sick of AI everywhere… I hope this blog is satire.”

I get the fatigue.

AI is everywhere right now, and a lot of it is badly implemented, unnecessary, or driven by trend-chasing. Not everything needs AI.

We’ve seen this before.

The dot-com boom had the same energy: everything became “internet-enabled,” most of it didn’t last, and what remained were the tools that actually had a purpose.

AI will likely follow a similar pattern.

It’s not going to disappear — but the saturation will settle, and what remains will be what’s actually useful.

As for this blog: it’s not satire.

It’s built around a simple premise: AI is here, people are using it, and much of the discourse around it is driven by assumptions rather than evidence.

So the goal isn’t to hype AI up or pretend it’s harmless.

It’s to look at it critically, using actual research and real examples — and to push back against narratives that don’t hold up.

There’s already enough noise around this topic.

We’re trying to add clarity.

“even if you don’t read this”

I did read it.

And I’m replying.

That’s kind of the point of this blog — even when I disagree, I still engage with what people are saying. Not everyone will like the answers, but they’ll get one.

So yes — I saw this. And I hope getting it out helped, even if we don’t see things the same way.

Hope you have a good day/night too.

Prometheus.exe

For context, this builds on:

Also worth checking out: