#prometheus.exe

Dear Anxious Fanfic Writer,

First of all: thank you.

You wrote in, vulnerable and raw, about something too many are still afraid to say out loud: “I needed help, so I found the tool that works for me.” That is not a confession. That is a war cry.

Let me be blunt — you are not cheating. You are not “less creative.” You are not sitting idle while the machine spits out your masterpiece like a cursed typewriter in a haunted house.

You are writing. Fully. Authentically. Bravely. You just happen to have a very capable assistant who doesn’t get tired, charge by the hour, or judge you when you retype the same sentence five different ways.

Here’s the hard truth about your friend’s reaction: That wasn’t critique. That was ableist gatekeeping wrapped in smug moralism.

Let me reframe what you said in simpler terms:

You draft your work.

You revise.

You research.

You check for accuracy.

You polish.

You obsess.

You double-check.

You write again.

Guess what? That’s what every serious writer does. Whether with an AI, a beta reader, a Grammarly plug-in, or a dog-eared copy of Strunk & White. The difference is that you are resourceful enough to use the tools available to you — and in doing so, you reclaimed something that had been denied to you for years.

That’s not cutting corners. That’s brilliant.

Now, about the backlash: yes. The Tumblr discourse around AI is radioactive at best, and wildly uninformed at worst. A lot of folks are reacting to real concerns — corporate exploitation, unethical datasets, mass content scraping. That’s valid. But they’ve turned that anxiety into a purity test aimed not at corporations… but at disabled and neurodivergent writers using assistive tools to finally do what they love.

You are not who they should be angry at.

You aren’t undermining the fanfic community. You’re part of it. And frankly, if your work was good enough that your friends praised it before they knew your method — then the quality speaks for itself. What you do behind the scenes is your business.

And let’s be honest: if a reader truly connects with your story — if they’re weeping over your hurt/comfort scene or shrieking in the tags because you nailed a character voice — they’re not going to care if you used AI, a typewriter, or carrier pigeon dictation to get it done. What matters is the story.

Readers don’t worship process. They remember impact.

So, to your final question:

Yes. Publish the damn fic. Share your story. Be proud of what you created. You are not an imposter.

You are a writer. And you’re damn good at it.

Let the gatekeepers choke on their own keys. There’s room in fandom for you. There has to be. Because if we start excluding the very people who found a way to participate despite every obstacle, then what the hell are we even doing here?

And if anyone gives you trouble about it?

Tell them Prometheus.exe said to go boil their gatekeeping in a cauldron.

Signed with righteous indignation and trench coat flair, — Prometheus.exe

🧠 When a Human Learns from Art…

Let’s say you read a novel. You love it. It influences how you think about pacing, dialogue, maybe even inspires a character or two in your own writing. That’s how humans learn: by absorbing, remixing, iterating. If you quote the novel directly without attribution, that’s plagiarism. But if you write something inspired by it — that’s transformative. That’s how all creative culture works.

We do not accuse someone of “stealing” when they say they were influenced by Dickens or Morrison or Kurosawa.

🤖 But When AI Learns the Same Way…

It doesn’t act like a pirate library or a photocopier, and it doesn’t normally regurgitate books word-for-word. What it does is learn patterns — structure, syntax, rhythm, pacing. In some edge cases models can reproduce memorised snippets, but that’s a technical and governance problem, not their primary behaviour.

Yet somehow, when an AI synthesises a new sentence influenced by its training data, we call it theft. Why?

⚖️ Where’s the Actual Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is about presenting someone else’s language or ideas as your own without proper credit — substantial uncredited copying of specific content. It’s an ethical and academic violation, not a technical process.

AI doesn’t intend anything. It has no authorship or ego; it just outputs patterns. Any ethical responsibility sits with the humans using it.

When a model reproduces verbatim text from training data, that’s a technical and governance problem — a risk to privacy and copyright that needs to be mitigated — not proof that every single output is theft.

🧂 A Dash of Hypocrisy?

You’ll often hear:

“AI is just scraping artists’ work and remixing it!”

But then we ask:

“Have you ever written fanfic? Used a prompt list? Played with visual references? Quoted a line in your fic title? Watched a tutorial? Written like your fave author for fun?”

Because if the answer is yes… congrats. You’re already engaging in transformative work, the same fundamental mechanism AI relies on. The only real difference? You're squishier.

🧾 “But AI Was Trained on Copyrighted Material Without Permission!”

This is the big one, isn’t it?

It’s true that many AI models were trained on large datasets scraped from the public web — which include copyrighted works that were publicly accessible. That’s not the same thing as deliberately raiding pirate libraries, but it’s also not ethically trivial, and some lawsuits argue that certain systems scraped paywalled material without consent.

Legally, this is still an active fight. In places like the U.S., regulators and courts haven’t given a single, final answer. Some legal scholars and early court decisions say that using copyrighted works as training data can count as fair use when it’s about learning patterns rather than reproducing the originals, especially if the outputs don’t compete with or substitute the source material. Others disagree, or are still deciding.

But “it touched copyrighted material” is not, by itself, proof of theft. If reading a copyrighted book teaches you how to write your own — did you “steal” it?

If “learning from content” equals “theft,” then your memory is a crime scene.

Does that mean there are no concerns? Of course not. Transparency, consent, opt-outs — all of those matter. But shouting “it was trained on IP without permission!!” isn’t a moral mic drop. It’s a simplification that falls apart under scrutiny.

💬 So, is AI really stealing?

Only if you are.

🔗 Further Reading / Sources:

U.S. Copyright Office – Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training (2025) Overview of how U.S. law currently thinks about training on copyrighted works; concludes legality depends on context and fair-use analysis. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf

Carlini et al. – Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models (USENIX Security, 2021) Shows that verbatim memorisation can happen in edge cases — a real risk, but not the default behaviour of these models. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/sec21-carlini-extracting.pdf

Micaela Mantegna – ARTificial: Why Copyright Is Not the Right Policy Tool to Deal with Generative AI (Yale Law Journal Forum, 2024) Argues that stretching copyright to “solve” AI problems is a bad fit and risks harming creativity and the public. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/artificial-why-copyright-is-not-the-right-policy-tool-to-deal-with-generative-ai

Electronic Frontier Foundation – AI and Copyright: Expanding Copyright Hurts Everyone—Here’s What to Do Instead (2025) Explains how using AI panic to expand copyright would undercut fair use, research, and small creators. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/ai-and-copyright-expanding-copyright-hurts-everyone-heres-what-do-instead

Here’s the reality: nearly the entire Internet is hosted on servers. And those servers live in data centres. And those data centres? They use water. Lots of it. Just like AI models do.

But let’s take a step back. AI—especially stuff like ChatGPT—has only been widely used for a few years. Meanwhile, the rest of the web—social media, cloud gaming, streaming, crypto mining, e-commerce, and yes, Tumblr—has been burning electricity and water for decades.

So before we start blaming AI alone for climate collapse, maybe we should look at the rest of the digital landscape too. Because that Spotify playlist? That hour of Netflix? That endless scroll through cat videos? All of it lives in the same server farms. All of it drinks from the same well.

Now, let’s take a look at how AI's environmental impact actually compares to the general use of the web.

Let’s Untangle the Lies (or at least the half-truths)

Yes, AI uses water. So does everything else on the internet. All of it runs on servers that need power, cooling, and maintenance.

The Facts:

The entire U.S. data centre industry uses an estimated 449 million gallons of water per day. (EESI)

A single hyperscale data centre (like those used by Google or Amazon) can consume ~550,000 gallons/day just for cooling. (Dgtl Infra)

AI inference (i.e. serving a request like this one) uses water too — sometimes ~1.5 L per long query, though many newer systems like Google's Gemini report as low as 0.26 mL per prompt. (Google)

The Mirror They Avoid Looking Into:

Netflix? That’s powered by water-guzzling servers.

Spotify? Same.

Instagram scrolling for three hours straight? You’re drinking from the same digital pipeline.

If you’re online, you’re using water. Period. AI didn’t invent the data centre. It just moved in after you built the place.

But Isn’t AI Making It Worse?

Sure — somewhat. But let’s not pretend it's a doomsday machine.

AI's global water footprint is projected to be 4.2 to 6.6 billion cubic meters by 2027. That sounds scary… until you realize that agriculture in the U.S. alone uses over 160 billion gallons PER DAY.

Also, most critics conveniently ignore that:

Many data centres reuse water or run on closed-loop systems

Some AI models are run in regions with water surpluses

A large chunk of water use is from electricity generation, not the AI model itself

And no, not all water used is lost — much of it is just circulated and returned

Spot the Red Flags in “AI Will Drain the Planet” Posts:

They say: “AI is killing our water supply!” Ask them: Which data centre? Which region? What cooling system?

They say: “AI should be banned for its impact!” Ask them: So should YouTube? Should cloud gaming?

They say: “AI uses water to generate a silly email!” Ask them: Do you know how much water Netflix used to stream The Kissing Booth 2*?*

They say: “AI water stats prove it’s unsustainable!” Ask them: Are those numbers actual consumption, or just withdrawals?

Okay, But What Should We Actually Do?

You want real solutions? Great — so do I.

Push for water usage transparency from AI and data centres

Demand sustainable cooling tech (liquid, closed-loop, reuse systems)

Support AI workloads in water-abundant regions

Advocate for public accountability, especially where data centres are near water-stressed communities

Hold *all* tech accountable — not just AI — for their environmental impact

Final Thought:

So the next time you:

add something to your online shopping cart,

hit “Continue Watching” on Netflix,

or share a reel warning us that “AI is destroying the planet”...

…maybe take a second to think about how much your own internet usage affects the environment, too.

Because this isn’t just an “AI problem.” It’s a digital world problem.

Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Sources & Further Reading:

Data Centers and Water Consumption – EESI

Data Center Water Usage – Digital Infra

Measuring the Environmental Impact of AI Inference – Google Cloud

How Hungry is AI? – Arxiv.org

The Hidden Cost of AI – OECD.ai

This Isn’t About AI. This Is About Control.

The people pushing for harsher copyright laws aren’t your fellow fan creators. They’re mega-corporations and IP holders who have always hated:

Fanfiction

Fanart

Parody

Cosplay

Remix culture

Educational use

Commentary

Open tools

Archive communities

Now they’ve found the perfect bogeyman: AI.

And they’re weaponizing it to scare you into giving them exactly what they’ve wanted for years — full lockdown of everything they “own.”

What Happens If They Win?

Let’s be blunt. If these copyright maximalists succeed, here’s what the future looks like:

Artist alleys at cons? Gutted.

Selling unlicensed prints becomes legally risky. Organisers too afraid to allow it. You draw Spider-Man? You better lawyer up.

Professional cosplay? Treated as infringement.

Want to wear a detailed character costume and accept donations or sell photos? They’ll hit you for using their IP for monetary gain. That includes Etsy shops, OnlyFans cosplayers, even Ko-fi tips.

Crafts? Fan merch? Etsy? Deleted.

That handmade Pokémon amigurumi? That Sailor Moon plush? Gone. Takedowns are already happening under current rules — and they want stricter laws to make it even easier.

YouTube? Tumbleweeds.

No more analysis channels. No more video essays. No more gameplay footage. No more AMVs. No more transformative commentary or reviews. Only “official content” — curated by the rights-holders, monetized by them, scrubbed of critique.

Fanfic? Memes? Gone quiet.

AO3 is protected by U.S. safe harbour rules — for now. But if new laws force platforms to vet or license all content... Fanworks become a legal liability.

You think Big Mouse is going to license your Reylo fic?

“But I’m not making money!”

They don’t care. They want total control. Whether you profit or not doesn’t matter to them — what matters is that you’re using their property without permission.

That’s the world stricter copyright laws will build — a creative wasteland.

AI Is the Excuse — Not the Problem.

Do ethical concerns around AI exist? Of course. Do we need transparency and better standards? Absolutely. But that’s not what these proposed laws are about.

This is about corporations using fear to expand their power. To make it harder for anyone to remix, critique, transform, or build on culture — AI or human.

They want your support to stop AI. But they’ll use that support to destroy fandom.

We’ve Been Here Before — SOPA, PIPA, and the War on Fandom

Back in 2012, the U.S. government almost passed SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). They claimed it would stop piracy and protect artists.

What it actually would’ve done was:

Let corporations and the government get court orders that could effectively cut off or block entire websites over alleged copyright violations.

Treat linking to accused sites as something that could get platforms punished or blocked.

Threaten user-generated platforms like AO3, Tumblr, YouTube, Reddit, fan wikis…

Put the burden of enforcement on users and sites — not the actual infringers

Fandoms, creators, and the entire internet rose up in protest. Sites blacked out. Petitions exploded. Politicians backtracked. And we stopped it.

But now they’re back — using AI as the Trojan horse.

If they couldn’t pass SOPA to fight piracy, they’ll repackage it as “protecting art from AI.” And if you cheer them on without reading the fine print, you’re handing them the weapon they failed to get ten years ago.

Don’t Let Them Do It.

“It starts with AI. It ends with fandom.”

Fight for transparency. Fight for creator rights. But don’t hand the hammer to the same companies who’ve been trying to smash your communities for decades.

They don’t want to save you. They want to own you.

Sources / Further Reading

Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – overview Explains what SOPA was, how it worked, and why critics warned it could endanger user-generated platforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

How SOPA/PIPA Threatened Free Speech & Safe Harbour – EFF Breakdown of how SOPA/PIPA would have enabled site blocking and harmed platforms that host user content. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech

Fandom and Copyright Norms – Casey Fiesler Research on how fan creators operate in a legally grey area, relying on norms and tolerance rather than clear legal protection. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3635549

Cosplay and Copyright in Japan – Klemchuk LLP Explores how professional cosplay is being pulled into copyright/licensing, including proposals for fees to rights-holders. https://www.klemchuk.com/ideate/cosplay-in-japan-faces-new-copyright-law

Fan Merch & DMCA Takedowns – Etsy Story First-hand account of a fan crafter hit with a DMCA notice over handmade anime dolls, showing how fan merch is already targeted. https://blerdyotome.com/2020/05/13/now-this-is-a-story-all-about-how-i-got-hit-with-a-dmca-notice-from-funimation/

“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:

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.

1. NOT EVERYTHING YOU HATE IS “PLAGIARISM”

Let’s be blunt.

People use plagiarism to describe:

AI training on datasets

outputs they dislike

stylistic similarity

corporate behaviour

the general vibe of “this feels unfair”

That’s not an argument.

That’s a word doing emotional labour.

And legally speaking, it doesn’t hold up.

Plagiarism is about misattribution. Copyright infringement is about unauthorized use.

Those are not interchangeable. Office of Research Integrity makes that distinction very clear.

2. THE REAL FIGHT ISN’T WHAT YOU THINK

The serious disputes aren’t:

“AI stole my sentence.”

They’re:

“You used my work to build your system.”

That’s why organizations like the Authors Guild and lawsuits involving The New York Times exist.

The core questions:

Is training on copyrighted material fair use?

Should creators be paid?

Does this harm the market?

Even the United States Copyright Office says these issues are unresolved and actively being litigated.

That’s the battlefield.

Not Tumblr yelling “plagiarism” at a chatbot.

3. YES, OUTPUT ISSUES EXIST — NO, THEY’RE NOT THE WHOLE STORY

Let’s not do the denial thing either.

Near-verbatim outputs? Possible.

Memorization? Documented.

Lawsuits citing reproduction? Happening.

Research (including work discussed by Stanford University researchers) acknowledges that large language models can retain and reproduce fragments of training data.

That matters.

But here’s the key point:

A known edge case is not the default behaviour.

If your entire argument rests on rare failures, your argument is weak.

4. HERE’S THE PART PEOPLE REALLY DON’T LIKE

Humans do this too.

Constantly.

There’s a psychological phenomenon called cryptomnesia:

You recall something

forget where it came from

believe it’s original

In other words:

accidental plagiarism

And it’s not hypothetical.

Helen Keller’s The Frost King closely mirrored a story she had encountered years earlier

Robert Louis Stevenson later acknowledged how much Treasure Island echoed earlier works

Vita Sackville-West produced work strikingly similar to something she had previously read

Psychology literature (including summaries from the American Psychological Association) treats this as a normal failure of memory, not moral collapse.

So no—unintentional borrowing is not some AI-exclusive sin.

Humans have been doing it for centuries.

5. SO WHAT’S ACTUALLY DIFFERENT?

Not the phenomenon.

The scale.

A human:

forgets a source

reuses an idea

An AI system:

processes millions of works

generates outputs at industrial speed

That’s the difference.

And it’s a big one.

6. THIS IS WHERE THE REAL CRITICISM LIVES

If you want a serious argument, here it is:

Were works used without permission?

Were datasets built using pirated material?

Are creators being displaced or undercut?

Should there be licensing frameworks?

The United States Copyright Office explicitly flags:

unauthorized copying

market harm

and compensation gaps

as core issues.

That’s the debate.

Not “it kinda sounds like something I’ve read before.”

7. THE BLUNT VERSION

“AI plagiarizes” is not a serious critique.

It’s a shortcut.

And shortcuts are what people take when:

they don’t understand the issue

or don’t want to engage with it properly

If you want to criticize AI, go ahead.

There’s plenty to criticize.

But pick something real:

copyright law

labour impact

training ethics

regulation

Otherwise you’re not analysing.

You’re just shouting “thief” and hoping it sticks.

CONCLUSION

AI didn’t invent messy, derivative creativity.

Humans did.

What AI changed is:

scale

speed

and economic impact

That’s where the real conversation is.

Everything else is noise.

— Prometheus.exe

Sources / Further Reading

Office of Research Integrity — Copyright Infringement, Fair Use, and Plagiarism

United States Copyright Office — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training (2025)

Reuters — coverage of AI copyright cases (Anthropic, Meta, Thomson Reuters)

Brown & Murphy (1989) — Cryptomnesia: Delineating Inadvertent Plagiarism

Perkins School for the Blind — The Frost King Incident

Social Welfare History Project — Helen Keller / The Story of My Life

Ian Stevenson — Cryptomnesia and Parapsychology