#creative technology

We’ve Seen This Movie Before

Every few years, fandom rediscovers a new thing to declare impure.

“Real artists don’t use digital.”

“Real writers don’t touch fanfic.”

“Self-publishing doesn’t count.”

“Using reference photos is cheating.”

“Tracing is evil, even if it’s part of learning.”

Now it’s:

“If you use AI in any part of your process, your work is trash and you’re not a real creator.”

Same structure, new target.

It’s never just, “This tool has risks, let’s talk about them.” It’s, “This tool is morally filthy, and anyone who touches it is suspect.”

That’s purity culture. It’s about moral cleanliness, not actual impact.

Boundaries Are Healthy. Gatekeeping Is Not.

There is a difference between having standards for your own space and policing everyone else’s existence.

Healthy boundaries look like:

“This zine doesn’t allow AI-generated content. That’s our rule.”

“Our event is for traditional media only.”

“Please tag AI-assisted work so people can filter it.”

That’s curation. It’s specific, transparent, and local to that space.

Gatekeeping looks like:

“If you use AI at any stage, you’re not a real artist/writer.”

“People who use AI shouldn’t be in fandom.”

“You’re morally suspect unless you publicly swear you never touched these tools.”

That’s not about keeping a space coherent. That’s about deciding who is allowed to count as a person whose work matters.

Nice clean rule of thumb:

Curation says “not in this space, for these reasons.” Gatekeeping says “not anywhere, by anyone, for any reason.”

If you’re doing the second one, you’re not defending community standards. You’re running an inquisition.

When “Ethics” Turns Into Spiritual Cleanliness

A lot of anti-AI rhetoric presents itself as moral high ground:

“AI art is inherently unethical.”

“Using AI is theft, full stop.”

“It’s about respect for real artists.”

But then you look at the behaviour that falls out of that, and it’s very… religious.

Purity rules:

One brush with AI “taints” the entire work.

It doesn’t matter whether the use was small, private, or transformative.

It doesn’t matter whether the person is respectful, careful, or transparent.

There is no redemption arc. Once “impure,” always “impure.”

Confession rituals:

People are pressured to disclose their entire process so others can audit their purity.

If someone admits to using AI, that confession gets weaponised to discredit everything they do.

If someone doesn’t disclose, they’re treated like they’re lying by default.

At that point, it’s not about harm reduction or structural change anymore. It’s about policing spiritual cleanliness around a tool.

You’re not fighting corporations when you do that. You’re managing a vibe.

Who Actually Gets Hit by Purity Panics

Let’s be real: purity crusades almost never land where people pretend they’re aimed.

Companies and platforms will happily:

keep training on whatever data they can,

keep shipping products,

keep making money.

They have lawyers, PR, and distance.

The people who actually feel the impact of “you’re impure if you use this” are:

hobbyists who have jobs/kids and use tools to save time,

small creators trying to claw back a bit of energy,

anxious writers who need help organising their thoughts or editing,

folks outside the “in-group” who don’t have social capital to withstand a dogpile.

In other words: the least powerful people in the ecosystem.

When your big heroic stand against AI mostly consists of:

harassing random fic writers,

blacklisting tiny blogs,

and setting up social purity tests for people with 200 followers,

…you’re not fighting “Big Tech.” You’re punching sideways and down.

If your “ethics” never reach a boardroom, but constantly explode in some stranger’s notes, it’s not ethics. It’s ego.

“But I Don’t Want AI in My Spaces”

Fair. Totally valid.

You’re allowed to say:

“No AI-generated prose or images in this event.”

“Please label AI use clearly if you post here.”

“This space is for traditional methods only.”

The difference is how you treat people:

Do you state the rule and enforce it calmly?

Or do you treat people as morally inferior for making a different choice somewhere else?

You can control your boundaries. You do not get to control other people’s entire creative process across the internet.

You want a community rule? Cool. Write it clearly. Apply it consistently. You want to run a witch-hunt? That’s a choice too—but own that it’s about your desire for control, not some universal ethical law.

A Better Direction for the Anger

If you’re genuinely worried about AI and ethics, there’s useful work to be done:

Push for consent and opt-out/opt-in systems for training data.

Support fair pay for human workers whose labour is being displaced or devalued.

Demand transparency from companies about datasets, water use, energy, and safety.

Fight fraud: deepfakes, fake endorsements, impersonations, scammy “AI authors” passing off scraped work as their own.

All of that is real, concrete, and aimed upward, where the power actually is.

What doesn’t help:

trying to socially nuke some rando who used an AI tool to outline their fic,

acting like you’re a better person because your text editor doesn’t autocomplete as aggressively,

turning “I don’t like this tool” into “people who use this tool should be shunned.”

Critique the tech. Critique the corporations. Critique the laws. Just stop acting like persecuting other creators is the same as having principles.

TL;DR for the Scroll-Happy

Disliking AI is fine. Being critical of AI is healthy.

Setting rules for your space is fine. That’s curation.

Deciding other people are lesser beings for using tools you don’t approve of? That’s gatekeeping and purity culture.