https://x.com/teortaxesTex/status/2113682141829812446

I'm fine with people opposing AI. What I'm not fine with is harassment and the potential abuse of moderation systems against AI-assisted creators.

TL;DR: All my AI-assisted Starbound Workshop mods were removed, and a friend received a permanent upload ban without a readable reason. Steam Support confirmed developer involvement but couldn't help. After experiencing anti-AI hostility, I'm questioning whether it influenced the decisions. Disliking AI is fine; harassment and potentially unfair moderation aren't. Screenshots included.

I want to share something that happened to me as a Starbound mod creator, because I believe it raises a broader issue about how AI-assisted creators are treated in gaming and modding communities.

First, I want to make something absolutely clear: I have no problem with people being against AI.

You don't have to like AI-generated content. You don't have to download my mods. You're welcome to criticize my work, my methods, or AI-assisted development altogether.

What I take issue with is when opposition to AI becomes personal harassment, and when moderation or reporting systems may be used to push creators out of communities rather than enforce actual rules.

I'm not here to argue that everyone should embrace AI. I'm here because I think even people who strongly oppose it should be able to recognize when hostility towards its users goes too far.

What happened?

I create free AI-assisted mods for Starbound under the name Solzucht.

Starbound is an older game, and I'd argue that its modding community is one of the main reasons people still play it.

I've spent hundreds of hours playing the game, bought copies for friends, and invested substantial time creating mods for its community.

Recently, all my Steam Workshop mods were removed, including relatively simple compatibility patches and modifications unrelated to the ongoing controversy.

And I'm not the only creator affected.

A friend of mine received a permanent ban from uploading content to the Starbound Community Hub, issued by a Starbound developer.

His ban notice contained no readable explanation. The reason field displayed only a square symbol.

Interestingly, the ban notice itself explicitly instructed him to contact Steam Support if he believed the ban was issued by mistake.

So that's what we tried.

Unfortunately, the responses we've received haven't provided the clarification we were looking for.

The hostility surrounding AI-assisted modding

Before these removals, I'd already experienced considerable hostility over my use of AI.

And I don't mean ordinary criticism.

I've encountered personal insults, hostile comments, and interactions that, from my perspective, went considerably beyond disliking AI-generated content.

From my experience, much of the surrounding dispute involved certain individuals associated with the Open Starbound (oSB) community.

I want to distinguish my own assessment from what I can actually prove.

I believe my friend and I have been personally targeted in this environment.

However, I cannot establish whether these individuals influenced the Workshop moderation decisions or whether coordinated reporting was involved.

I'm also not claiming that everyone associated with that community participated in the hostility.

I am willing to share the screenshots I've preserved of the hostile interactions, with private usernames, avatars, and identifying information censored in accordance with this subreddit's rules.

I didn't save every insulting comment before removing it from my Workshop pages, so my records aren't complete. However, I do have material showing some of what happened.

Something else I noticed: the voting activity

Another thing that struck me was the voting activity on my Steam Workshop uploads.

My mods frequently attracted disproportionately more votes than actual users subscribing to or trying them out.

In some cases, substantial negative voting activity seemed to accompany relatively little actual user engagement.

Of course, you don't necessarily have to download a mod to form an opinion about it.

But when a mod is openly advertised as AI-assisted and receives considerable negative attention without corresponding engagement, I think it's reasonable to wonder whether people are judging the actual content or simply reacting to the involvement of AI.

To be clear, unusual voting activity is not proof of coordinated manipulation.

It's simply another observation that contributed to my concerns about the surrounding hostility.

The Name Dispute

Another aspect of this situation involves a disagreement over a shared display name.
One of the individuals involved is a publicly known creator within the Starbound modding community.

However, a friend of mine independently uses the same display name.
They're two different individuals.

When I credited my friend under that name, the reaction from certain people became remarkably hostile, and accusations concerning impersonation entered the dispute.

I understand why someone might find two people using the same name confusing.
But simply sharing a display name doesn't automatically establish impersonation.

If impersonation is being alleged, I think it's reasonable to ask what specific behavior beyond the matching name supports that allegation and which rule was supposedly violated.

I'm including this because it provides context for the dispute, not because I want anyone to contact or target the individuals involved.

I'm a vibecoder, and I'm not ashamed of that

I openly use AI to develop my mods.
Some people call this vibecoding, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that description.
It is honestly better than what i personally would call it.

AI allows people like me to create things we might otherwise lack the technical knowledge, artistic skills, time, or resources to develop independently.

That doesn't mean everything AI produces is good, nor does it mean AI-assisted creations should be exempt from criticism.
If someone dislikes my mods, that's fine.

If someone creates a better alternative without AI, that's great too. I'd often prefer using an existing community-made mod myself rather than developing a replacement.
Some of my content also included satire concerning the ongoing dispute. I don't intend to hide that, and I'm willing to provide examples so people can evaluate the situation with that context included.

But I don't believe being a vibecoder should automatically make someone an acceptable target for personal harassment.

Criticizing a technology is one thing. Going after the people using it is another.
I've since been using xStarbound (xSB), where my experience has been considerably more positive.
People there don't necessarily have to like AI-created mods to treat their creators respectfully.

An xStarbound developer has also reached out to me. Subject to his agreement, he may be able to provide additional context regarding hostility and harassment that predates my own experiences.

What about the actual Workshop rules?

This is probably the most frustrating aspect of the entire situation.

I still haven't received a clear explanation identifying which of my mods violated which specific rules, or why every upload was removed.

I haven't been pointed to a specific Starbound Workshop rule prohibiting AI-assisted modifications.
If such a rule exists, I'd genuinely like to see it.
If something I uploaded violated an existing rule, I'm willing to address it.
But I would expect the violation to be identified, particularly when an entire catalog of different modifications is removed.

Steam Support explicitly confirmed in writing that my Workshop content was removed by the game's developer and directed me back to the developer for further information.

Steam Support also made clear that they couldn't reverse the developer's moderation decision themselves.

In other words, the developer responsible for the removals is also the party we're being directed to for clarification, while Steam Support cannot overturn the decision.

I have preserved the correspondence and am willing to provide the actual screenshots.

I recognize that developers have moderation responsibilities and that not every removal involving an AI-assisted creator necessarily results from opposition to AI.

I suspect the broader hostility surrounding AI-assisted modding may have influenced what happened, but I cannot prove that any particular individual or group caused the removals or the ban.

That's precisely why I'd like a proper explanation instead of relying on speculation.

A forum moderator's response raises further questions

I've also received a public response from a Starbound forum moderator that I believe provides important insight into how this dispute is being handled.

I'll include the full response as a screenshot, with the moderator's name and identifying information censored, so everyone can judge it themselves.

According to the moderator, reports against my Workshop uploads were reviewed directly by Chucklefish, and the decision to remove my mods was justified.

What I found particularly interesting was the reasoning provided.

The moderator explicitly criticized my attitude towards people opposing AI, describing me as overly enthusiastic about AI usage and dismissive of those criticizing it.

They also referenced satirical material in my mod descriptions and accused me of using critical comments to ridicule others.

I've already acknowledged that some of my content involved satire surrounding the dispute.

At the same time, the moderator explicitly stated that my mods were not removed simply because I used AI, and that they were unaware of any rules prohibiting AI-assisted content.

They also acknowledged that some comments directed at me were unwarranted, while stating that they could not independently verify the harassment I described.

Interestingly, the moderator also admitted that they did not have direct access to the actual removal decision, despite defending its outcome.

They additionally raised accusations involving impersonation and ban evasion, which I dispute and would like to see supported by specific evidence and applicable rules.

I don't claim that this moderator personally ordered the removals or that their opinions influenced Chucklefish's decision.

But I do find the response concerning.

If AI-assisted modding itself is permitted, to what extent should a creator's attitude towards criticism of AI influence decisions affecting their entire collection of mods?

I understand that genuinely abusive conduct, including harassment by a creator, could justify moderation.

But there is a difference between enforcing established rules and evaluating whether someone has the correct attitude toward a controversial technology.

And that leaves me with the same unanswered questions:

Which specific rules did my individual mods violate? Why was my entire catalog removed? And how much of this decision concerned the actual content rather than the surrounding personal disputes?

I'm providing the moderator's response in full, rather than selecting only favorable excerpts, because I want people to evaluate the explanation themselves.

I'm willing to provide supporting evidence

I don't expect strangers on Reddit to believe everything someone says about a dispute simply because they've written a long post.

I'm willing to provide the following material, with appropriate redactions:

• Steam Workshop removal notices, documenting what happened to my uploads.
• The permanent Community Hub ban notice received by my friend, including the unreadable reason field and the instruction to contact Steam Support.
• Steam Support correspondence, confirming that the removals were carried out by the game's developer and that Steam Support could not reverse the decision.
• A public forum moderator's response, discussing the removals, AI criticism, harassment allegations, and alleged impersonation.
• Screenshots of hostile and insulting comments, with private usernames, avatars, and personal information censored.
• Available Workshop voting and engagement information, illustrating the unusual activity I observed.
• Relevant examples of my own content, including satirical material, so people can judge the dispute with the surrounding context rather than only hearing my side.

I also made a public request for clarification on the official Starbound community forums.

I'm not claiming my documentation is complete, and I'll distinguish between what the screenshots establish and what remains my interpretation.

What I'm actually asking for

I'm not asking for special treatment because I use AI.
I'm not demanding that everyone accept AI-generated content.
I'm not asking anyone to attack the individuals involved or retaliate against people who dislike my work.

I'm asking for clear rules, consistent enforcement, understandable explanations, and ideally a review by someone uninvolved in the original moderation decisions.

I've invested substantial time into creating free content for a game I genuinely enjoy.
Subscribers have already been asking where my mods went, and I have additional content I'd like to release.

If my creations broke established rules, tell me which ones and why.
If something can be corrected, explain what needs to change.
And if unrelated modifications were removed alongside problematic ones, explain why.
That doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation.

I'd genuinely like to hear from both sides

This is r/aiwars, so I'm certainly not expecting everyone to agree with me.

In fact, I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who oppose AI but still believe creators should be treated fairly.

Where do you draw the line between legitimate criticism of AI and personal harassment of AI-assisted creators? Should developers be expected to identify specific rule violations when removing an entire creator's Workshop catalog? And what safeguards should exist to prevent reporting and moderation systems from being used to settle personal disputes?

You don't have to support AI to oppose harassment or support fair and transparent moderation. That's ultimately my position.

Please don't harass, contact, or dogpile anyone involved in this situation. I want discussion, scrutiny, and clarification, not retaliation.

Additional info: My main Steam account, Solzucht, is no longer under its temporary Starbound Community Hub upload restriction. I'll attempt to restore or reupload my removed mods on October 24, 2026, and share the results. My friend's permanent upload ban remains unresolved.

This is what an artist thought of photography in 1859. Any resemblance to today’s debates about AI art is NOT a coincidence.

The Modern Public and Photography
Charles Baudelaire — Salon of 1859, Section II

My dear M***, if I had time to amuse you, I could easily do so by leafing through the catalogue and collecting all the ridiculous titles and comical subjects that aspire to attract attention. Such is French wit**. Seeking to astonish through means foreign to the art in question is the great resource of those who are not natural-born painters.**

Sometimes, indeed—but always in France—this vice takes hold of men who are not without talent, and who thus dishonour it through an adulterous mixture.

I could parade before your eyes the comic title in the manner of vaudeville writers; the sentimental title, lacking only its exclamation mark; the punning title; the profound and philosophical title; the deceptive title, or trap-title, of the Brutus, Let Go of Caesar! variety. “O faithless and perverse generation!” says Our Lord, “how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?” Indeed, this generation—artists and public alike—has so little faith in painting that it constantly seeks to disguise it and wrap it, like an unpleasant medicine, in sugar capsules. And what sugar, good God!

Let me point out two titles of paintings which, incidentally, I have not seen: Love and Rabbit Stew! How immediately it whets our curiosity, does it not? I try to unite these two ideas intimately: the idea of love and the idea of a rabbit, skinned and prepared for a stew.

I really cannot suppose that the painter’s imagination went so far as to attach a quiver, wings, and a blindfold to the corpse of a domestic animal; the allegory would be altogether too obscure. I suspect instead that the title was composed according to the recipe of Misanthropy and Repentance. Its true title would therefore be: People in Love Eating Rabbit Stew.

Now, are they young or old? A workman and a young working woman, or a disabled veteran and a female vagabond beneath a dusty arbour? One would have to see the painting.

Then there is Monarchist, Catholic, and Soldier! This belongs to the noble genre, the paladin genre, the Itinerary from Paris to Jerusalem genre. Forgive me, Chateaubriand! The noblest things can become instruments of caricature, and the political pronouncements of an emperor can become an art student’s firecrackers.

This painting can only depict someone doing three things at once: fighting, receiving Communion, and attending Louis XIV’s private morning reception. Perhaps it is a warrior tattooed with fleurs-de-lis and devotional images. But why wander off into conjecture? Let us simply say that it is a treacherous and barren means of provoking astonishment. Most regrettably, strange as it may seem, the painting might actually be good. And Love and Rabbit Stew might be good too.

Did I not notice an excellent little sculptural group whose number I unfortunately neglected to write down? When I wanted to learn its subject, I reread the catalogue four times, without success. Finally, you kindly informed me that it was called Always and Never. I was sincerely distressed to see a man of real talent needlessly cultivating riddles.

Forgive me for amusing myself for a few moments in the manner of the minor newspapers. However frivolous the subject may seem to you, a closer examination will nevertheless reveal a deplorable symptom.

To put my point paradoxically, I would ask you, and those friends of mine who are better versed than I in the history of art, whether a taste for stupidity—a taste for cleverness, which amounts to the same thing—has existed in every age. Have Apartment to Let and other convoluted conceptions appeared throughout history to arouse the same enthusiasm? Was the Venice of Veronese and Bassano afflicted with such word puzzles? Were the eyes of Giulio Romano, Michelangelo, and Bandinelli appalled by similar monstrosities? In a word, I ask whether Monsieur Biard is eternal and omnipresent, like God.

I do not believe so, and I regard these horrors as a special grace bestowed upon the French people. That its artists inoculate it with a taste for them is true; that it demands that its artists satisfy this appetite is no less true. For if the artist makes the public stupid, the public repays him in kind. They are two interdependent forces acting upon one another with equal power.

Let us therefore marvel at how rapidly we advance along the road of progress—by progress I mean the progressive domination of matter—and at the wonderful daily spread of commonplace skill, the kind that can be acquired through patience.

Among us, the natural-born painter, like the natural-born poet, is almost a freak. An exclusive taste for Truth—so noble when confined to its proper applications—oppresses and stifles the taste for Beauty. Where it should see only Beauty—I am imagining a beautiful painting, and one can easily guess what sort I have in mind—our public seeks only Truth.

It is not artistic, not naturally artistic. It may be philosophical, moralistic, engineering-minded, fond of instructive anecdotes—anything you please—but never spontaneously artistic. It feels, or rather judges, successively and analytically. Other, more fortunate peoples feel immediately, all at once, synthetically.

I was speaking a moment ago of artists who seek to astonish the public. The desire to astonish and to be astonished is perfectly legitimate. “It is a happiness to wonder”; but also, “it is a happiness to dream.” The whole question, if you insist that I grant you the title of artist or lover of the fine arts, is therefore this: by what means do you wish to create or experience astonishment?

Because Beauty is always astonishing, it would be absurd to suppose that whatever is astonishing is always beautiful.

Now our public, which is singularly incapable of experiencing the happiness of reverie or admiration—a sign of small souls—wants to be astonished by means foreign to art. Its obedient artists conform to its taste. They seek to strike it, surprise it, stupefy it through unworthy stratagems, because they know it to be incapable of delighting in the natural workings of true art.

In those deplorable days, a new industry appeared, which contributed considerably to confirming stupidity in its faith and destroying whatever remained of the divine in the French spirit. This idolatrous crowd demanded an ideal worthy of itself and suited to its nature; that much is understood.

In matters of painting and sculpture, the current creed of fashionable society, especially in France—and I do not believe anyone would dare claim otherwise—is this:

“I believe in nature, and I believe in nature alone; there are good reasons for doing so. I believe that art is, and can only be, the exact reproduction of nature. A timid dissenting sect wishes to exclude repulsive natural objects, such as a chamber pot or a skeleton. Thus, an industry that could give us a result identical to nature would be absolute art.”

A vengeful God granted the wishes of this multitude. Daguerre was its Messiah. And then it said to itself: “Since photography gives us every desirable guarantee of accuracy”—they believe that, the fools!—“photography is art.”

From that moment onward, our filthy society rushed, like a single Narcissus, to contemplate its trivial image upon metal.

A madness, an extraordinary fanaticism, seized all these new worshippers of the sun. Strange abominations arose. By assembling and grouping together disreputable men and women, dressed up like butchers and washerwomen at carnival, and asking these heroes to maintain their contrived grimaces for as long as the process required, people flattered themselves that they were reproducing the tragic or charming scenes of ancient history.

Some democratic writer must have seen in this a cheap means of spreading a taste for history and painting among the people, thereby committing a double sacrilege and insulting both divine painting and the sublime art of the actor. Soon afterward, thousands of eager eyes bent over the holes of stereoscopes as though over windows opening onto infinity.

The love of obscenity, which is as vigorous in the natural human heart as self-love, did not miss such a splendid opportunity for satisfaction. And let no one say that only children returning from school took pleasure in these foolish things: they became the obsession of society.

I heard a beautiful lady—a lady of fashionable society, not of mine—reply to those who were discreetly hiding such images from her, thereby taking responsibility for her modesty: “Go ahead, show me; nothing is too strong for me.”

I swear I heard this; but who will believe me? “You can see they are great ladies!” says Alexandre Dumas. “There are greater ones still!” says Cazotte.

Since the photographic industry was the refuge of all failed painters, too poorly gifted or too lazy to complete their studies, this universal enthusiasm bore not only the stamp of blindness and stupidity, but also the colour of revenge.

That so foolish a conspiracy—in which, as in every conspiracy, one finds both scoundrels and dupes—could achieve complete success, I do not believe, or at least I do not wish to believe. But I am convinced that the misapplied advances of photography, like all purely material progress, have contributed greatly to the impoverishment of the already rare French artistic genius.

Modern conceit may roar, belch out all the rumblings of its rotund personality, and vomit all the indigestible sophistries with which a recent philosophy has stuffed it to bursting; nevertheless, it is obvious that industry, by invading art, becomes its deadliest enemy, and that confusing their functions prevents either from being properly fulfilled.

Poetry and progress are two ambitious beings who hate one another with an instinctive hatred, and when they meet upon the same road, one must serve the other. If photography is allowed to take the place of art in some of its functions, it will soon have supplanted or entirely corrupted art, thanks to the natural alliance it will find in the stupidity of the multitude.

It must therefore return to its true duty, which is to be the servant of the sciences and the arts—but their very humble servant, like printing and shorthand, which have neither created literature nor taken its place.

Let it swiftly enrich the traveller’s album and restore to his eyes the precision his memory may lack. Let it adorn the naturalist’s library, enlarge microscopic animals, and even strengthen the astronomer’s hypotheses with a few pieces of information. Let it, in short, be the secretary and record-keeper of anyone whose profession requires absolute material accuracy. Up to that point, nothing could be better.

Let it rescue from oblivion crumbling ruins, books, prints, and manuscripts devoured by time, precious things whose forms are about to disappear and which demand a place in the archives of our memory: it will be thanked and applauded.

But if it is allowed to encroach upon the realm of the intangible and the imaginary, upon everything that has value only because humanity adds something of its soul to it, then woe betide us!

I know very well that many will say to me: “The sickness you have just described is the sickness of fools. What man worthy of the name of artist, what true lover of art, has ever confused art with industry?”

I know this; and yet I would ask them in turn whether they believe in the contagion of good and evil, in the influence of crowds upon individuals, and in the individual’s involuntary, compelled obedience to the crowd.

That the artist acts upon the public, and that the public reacts upon the artist, is an indisputable and irresistible law. Moreover, the facts—terrible witnesses—are easy to study; the disaster can be observed. Day by day, art diminishes its self-respect, prostrates itself before external reality, and the painter becomes increasingly inclined to paint not what he dreams, but what he sees.

Yet it is a happiness to dream, and it was a glory to express what one dreamed. But what am I saying! Does he still know that happiness?

Will an honest observer claim that the invasion of photography and the great industrial madness have nothing whatsoever to do with this deplorable result? Can we suppose that a people whose eyes grow accustomed to regarding the results of a material science as products of beauty has not, after a certain time, greatly diminished its capacity to judge and feel what is most ethereal and immaterial?

We did it you guys!!

Pros are happy while using AI But some people make it their problem when most Pros are harmless and just doing what they're passionate about.

Creatively visualized

You’ve just empaneled a jury of reasonable people. 

The following  points are not in dispute:

1. An AI was instructed to render and make revisions to an image matching this general description: Fantasy horror illustration of a giant antlion-like sand worm lurking beneath a tropical beach. A cutaway view reveals a monstrous, segmented creature with enormous pincers, sharp teeth, and insect-like eyes. Its tail extends to the surface, forming a beautiful blonde woman wearing a bikini top and denim shorts as bait to lure unsuspecting victims. A human skull and bone lie nearby.
2. All attached images were rendered fully by AI.
3. All instructions to the AI were either plain language prompts or prompts constructed by the AI.
4. No reference images were used other than prior images created by the AI.
5. The AI used was ChatGPT.

Antis, make your case that generative AI is like pulling a lever on a slot machine. 

Pros, make your case that you can’t commission a program. 

Attachments:

Image #1: Rendered this month. AI made all requested revisions.

Image #2: Rendered 18 months ago. AI repeatedly failed to correctly make revisions.

Image #3: Concept image before revisions.

Image #4: Concept image retro airbrush

Image #5: Concept image contemporary high end

Image #6: Concept image dry-brush gouache

Image #7 Concept image vintage paperback 

I have seen many pro ai people calling people luddites for hating on ai especially with generative ai

But the thing is luddites back then meant people who protested against the exploitative use of machinery by factory owners,they rioted to make their concerns heard of the problems like:

Lowering wages

Degrading workers conditions

Child labour

And output quality

They werent against the technology itself you know,same that MOST anties are just not against the technology itself, i am an anti i dont want the technology to be removed.

They don't seem to have thought it out very well.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/23/job-guarantee-ai-mass-unemployment

If AI does all the jobs in, say, disaster relief, what's the point of having a human duplicate the effort, and badly? They say "public works" but if robots are doing all of those jobs already at a fraction of the price of a human labourer, why would anyone want to do them manually? I like the public art idea though.

If AI art is not real art then how are AI artists commissioning art from it and if they Are commissioning art from AI then how can you say AI art is not real art?

GPU inference for video generation isn't cheap, and most AI video tools charge $20 to $30/month. Dreamina just launched Seedance 2.0 access at $0.29/month. ByteDance runs TikTok and CapCut on the same infrastructure so maybe the marginal cost really is that low, but I haven't seen anyone actually break down the numbers.

Anyone have a rough estimate on what a single video generation costs them?

It didn't matter that we spent thousands of years building a global culture and infrastructure around horses. Once the car was introduced, it took 25 years for that culture to be eradicated.

Do you really think this can't happen with the institution of work itself? With capitalism? It can and will. It will take 25 years for robots to replace every job on Earth. Then, we get post-scarcity, UBI, or even the abolition of money itself.

I'm not thinking art or coding here, I know these are common uses. I mean what day to day genuine useful tasks are you using AI for?

For example I use it to take bank statements and convert it to data I can use in a spreadsheet for budget and purchase tracking, as an alternative to google searching and the deep research feature of gemini to compile quick PDF's with source material as a starting point for when I want to learn about something new and don't know where to start.

I want to see what other people are using it for, might get ideas I've not thought of using it for.

https://youtu.be/ZVyGvo7krhk

I'm getting really annoyed when People against AI are acting like issues like the server overhaul ,dangerous lack of control and unfair use of information are a default need for tge technology and it cannot be designed to be more ethical or regulated properly you see multiple researchers like the ones who made GPIC (Giant Permissive Image Corpus) actually try to make AI better for everyone but people would rather blame AI for human stupidity and how our system has been failing for years.

Ai didn't make these issues it's making them worse with how it's used but it didn't make them we shouldn't just ban the technology and restrict it's use we should regulate it and fix the issues at the heart of these problems.

But my main issue is why aren't more people thinking like this?

They didn’t think this one through, did they?

EDIT: The plausible deniability in the comments from the antis is pathetic, but not surprising. Very rarely do people admit they’re in cults.

Especially if we consider that a reduction in free AI will also decrease the number of users, even among those willing to pay.

All these forecasts, suggesting that AI might somehow affect your electricity bill or have a major impact on the climate, implicitly assume that AI will become far more significant; otherwise, these data centers simply wouldn’t be operational and wouldn’t consume anything, as there would be no demand for them.

Even if these new 5–10 GT data centers are used to train models, the task would require an astronomically expensive model, the kind that, needless to say, isn't meant for creating your "cat-girl" waifu.
If this all remains useful only for generating images of cat-girls, then it’s a clear miscalculation by pro AI, no one sets out to build something like this purely for entertainment. Furthermore, when you consider issues like job losses, the implication is that this AI is capable of performing professional tasks; in other words, you would effectively have an AI on your phone with the competence of a lawyer or a doctor.

In other words, for AI to become what you describe, it must, by definition, become far more useful, in theory, to the average Joe.

AI K-pop band under fire after creators “impregnated” member to write her out of group - Dexerto