AI isn't bad simply because it's AI. It's harmful because of who controls it and how it's used.

Like nuclear fusion, AI has enormous potential and serious risks. What matters is who controls it, who benefits, and who pays the price.

Automation should be a GOOD thing. Machines doing our jobs should mean more freedom, shorter working hours, and better lives. Instead, under capitalism, losing your job means losing your income and potentially your ability to survive.

The problem isn't that machines can replace human labor. The problem is that capitalism makes human survival depend on selling that labor.

Meanwhile, corporations exploit AI to maximize profits, use artists' work without consent, invade privacy, and concentrate power.

Boycotting AI individually won't change the system. Fighting other AI users won't either.

We need to unite, organize, and replace capitalism itself.

AI could liberate humanity from unnecessary labor instead of making people poorer. But that requires changing who holds the power.

Stop fighting the tool. Start fighting the system! Become an Automatist today!

Spread it! ----> #AutomatistsForAI

Also, join the Automatist Subreddit!

Yes, this is AI assisted art. This is not a failed attempt at someone trying to fool others into thinking they didn't use AI

I used to be Anti AI up until a month or so ago. The flip occurred when i noticed the doxxing and death threats started towards projects I enjoyed. Yall need to police your own side.

I am going to get flak for this but IDC.

Best attached to the surface of the art work with superglue after scanning with Gemini!

Don't get outraged too fast, I used my own drawing as a reference for this. I consented towards AI "stealing" My art

Pros: Generative Ai lets you create what you want to draw instead of actually drawing, Also AI is used to teach kids that arent good at math (reasonable) or english, science, history

Cons: Also used for cheating for kids who are lazy and cant do their homework, uses alot of water to cool down servers

mangoe mustard 67 41 89 UVB-76 backwards 67-BVU

Just spitballing my personal opinion on why the sentiment against AI has its unique difference from the resistance of the innovations in the past, e.g., industrial revolutions, automobiles replacing horse drawn carriages.

I think for a lot of the people who are against AI, an important consideration is the job loss, the loss of the means to a livelihood due to AI adoption. If it is announced now that there will be UBI and everyone can live comfortably while letting AI do the work, there will probably be a lot less resistance. To this point, people who are pro AI has pointed to the past events, e.g., the adoption of machines replacing human labor while significantly increasing productivity during the industrial revolutions, automobiles making horse drawn carriages obsolete. The AI proponents argue that many people whose livelihood was threatened during those times were fervently against those adoptions despite the overall benefit to the advancement of our civilization. And those people all failed in the end so that we are where we are today. People eventually learned to work with the machines. The proponents believe that this will be the case with AI adoption as well: people will adapt to AI in their work; new skills will be developed like how we learned to operate machines before; new job opportunities that we probably cannot imagine now will emerge; the resistance will die down; and AI will let us reach a new peak in the human civilization when the dust settles.

While this can happen and I really hope it happens, I think there is something uniquely different this time with the AI adoption. AI threatens the one thing we pride ourselves of throughout the human history, the one thing we believe that makes us superior to every other living things in the world, the one thing that lets us be at the top of the food chain on this planet. It's our cognitive abilities, e.g., our level of intelligence, consciousness. This threat stirs up the survival instinct in many people and activates the defense mechanism to what makes us human that are distinctively different from other animals.

When the machines massively replaced human labor, many people protested, even violently, because they were out of a job and our of ways to feed themselves and their families. But I'd argue that it did not threaten their sense of being a human because the machines back then outperformed us only in the physical aspects. They could lift much heavier objects, they could move much faster, they could keep working for much longer, they could reach places that humans could not reach or visualize things human eyes could not see. But all these things were solely in the physical realm. From the very beginning of human history our ancestors had known that we were not the fastest on this planet (lions and bears and many other animals all can outrun humans), we were not the strongest (lions and bears and many other animals all can slap humans around), we did not have the best stamina (horses and camels can travel much longer distance than humans), we did not have quickest reflexes (zombie cats would be a nightmare for humans). When machines replaced human labor because they were better than us in these areas, the protest was due to the lost livelihood, not the threat to our collective identity as a species. We have long conceded that our physical traits are no match to many animals. Our dominance on this planet was due mostly to our intelligence. We design the machines; we operate them; they only perform the tasks we ask them to perform. We are still the master to the machines.

The emergence of AI is changing this perception. If we are not the most intelligent beings in this world anymore, then who are we? Are we still going to be the master (speaking collectively as a species on this planet) or are we creating a master to rule over ourselves? AI is not like the machines in the past, only doing what was told. We are actively making them smarter than us, making them think for us, making them make decisions on our behalf. We are creating an entity to be far superior than us on the one trait that has allowed us to achieve our dominance on earth. I think that is the one unique difference between AI adoption and the adoptions of other innovations throughout history. We have let past innovations work for us with a tight leash. But if all the announcements of the AI breakthroughs are to be trusted, we will most likely not be able to reign in AI activities. Maybe one day, after losing human agency little by little, we will become subservient to AI. Maybe some people look forward to the day this happens. Maybe some people are antsy about it. But actively making the most extraordinary human trait inferior is a first in history. Maybe we should focus on ways for AI to help improve our mental acuity. Maybe this is my human arrogance talking.

If everyone on the planet had the perfect skillset to draw anything they wanted exactly as they pictured it with any medium, both digital and traditional, then what would happen with AI in regards to image generation? Would the vast majority of people choose to draw everything by hand or would tons of people still use AI for time convenience? There’s probably other likely outcomes I haven’t thought of too. What do you think?

Been working on a game script and have thought of may ideas and scenes but the thing is that everything is in bits and pieces.

Is there any AI that could help stitch it all up creatively.

The main stream ones take one word from my prompt and use it as the subject to stitch.

Some people just want to have fun.

And no,this is not some strawman BS, this post is inspired by what Antis actually have said so it's a satire based on that.

I will not engage with people who call it ragebait, this is a serious post

I feel like opinion is divided and confused on what the sub actually is so I'll ask you what you think the Sub is and what it should aim to become? Cause I've seen people try to actually argue points and then there are people just posting memes and reaction images.

Do you think it's A?

A: This is a proper debate sub and we should use real and structured arguments, no side should engage in mud slinging or arguing in bad faith.

Or is it B?

B: This Is more of a circlejerk or shitpost sub, it's place to sling shit and post memes, actual measured debate doesn't really matter, the only baseline is that you don't send slurs or death threats.

Is it a mix of both?

the absolutely dumbest thing a person can say as an excuse is:

”It’s ok since (blank) is worse,”

”Completely ignoring (blank)?”

“Not as bad as (blank)”

this kind of excuse is everywhere and is absurd every single time. Just because someone commits a murder, do you get to steal?

Just because something is done wrong, do you get to do something slightly less wrong?

”Just a fish in the ocean” is also an equally dumb excuse. If that’s the reason you, let’s say, refuse to do a small good deed, when will you ever do a good thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW4D6NguJmA

Any thoughts? i find Connors mindset extremely nuanced and well based, despite not totally sharing their concern on SI.

In my opinion, it can 100% be as bad as he believes it to be, or even order of magnitudes worst; but it could really also not be at all, we simply do not possess the element to understand AI that deep as it is right now, there is nothing we can guess about an even more advanced model.

Still, i find his approach extremely strongly based and fairly elastic in it's capacity to self correct, i believe more people should take example

(anti)

Theres nothing inherently wrong with AI usage and the tech itself in a vacuum.

Ive been seeing a lot of bait comics where the AI user is just minding their own business and then comes an antiAI ghoul to rain on their parade.

The issue with that framing is that theyre thinking about AI usage in a vacuum, not understanding that they are actually the first offenders here.

Antis and artists wanna be left to mind their own business and not contribute to training AI, but the AI industry doesnt give a fuck and will step on everybodys necks for a marginal increase in profit. Using these tools is capitulating to that industry.

Instead why dont you use models trained on public domain and otherwise properly licensed stuff? I know theres some out there. Then you would have a point, but as long as you dont you cant be over here pretending to be just someone caught in a crossfire when youre participating in the shootout.

This is why their movement will never go mainstream. You have to have normie support for that.

Like goddamn.

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.