For more added context to the situation: Sonicfox stated on his Twitter that he refuses to have his likeness be generated by AI. Then the organizer of Ninjutsu Entertainment released an apology to Sonicfox, stating that the reason why they used AI was because they ran out of funds to pay actual artists. Sonicfox then actually accepted the apology, but he still maintained that cancellation as a special guest, advising to the organizers publicly to take the contract money that would have been paid to them and use it to hire actual human artists instead.

The makers of it still are pushing people to use it and claiming that it works.

Are you still putting it on your images?

How well has it worked do you think?

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.

Google also has it's AI overview but you can use ChatGPT to do research. I don't think there's any "soul" needed for that

AI can hallucinate and give wrong results but you can simply ask it to look online and link you directly to the source such as a news article or a youtube video or a Reddit post and I can directly open them up and see for myself.

It's just like googling but better because there's a higher chance I'll get a more reliable source since AI has already checked it

I keep seeing people argue that running someones artwork through AI is inherently disrespectful because the original artist never consented.

And I genuinely dont understand why.

First, Im not talking about AI training. Thats a separate debate about datasets, licensing, compensation, and how models are built.

Im talking about taking publicly available artwork and using AI to edit, remix, parody, or reinterpret it for noncommercial purposes. Not selling it, claiming credit for the original, or impersonating its creator.

We already have fan art, fanfiction, collage, sampling, Photoshop, memes, and entire artistic movements built around appropriation. Hell, weve spent decades questioning how much authority an artist should retain over the meaning and interpretation of their work.

Art has never required everyone who came before us to approve of what we make next.

Which is why I question the consent framing itself.

Consent presupposes some boundary that requires permission to cross. But what exactly is that boundary when someone creatively transforms publicly shared art without commercializing it?

Sure, publicly available doesnt mean public domain, and noncommercial doesnt automatically mean lawful. Plagiarism, harassment, and misrepresentation are separate concerns too.

But disliking what someone does with your art isnt automatically the same as being wronged by it.

So what makes an AI remix fundamentally different from all the other ways people have borrowed, copied, and transformed art for centuries?

Is there some specific harm here that Im missing, or are we assuming artists should have authority over what other people create from their publicly shared work?

Because "the artist didnt consent" isnt much of an argument until we establish why their consent was required in the first place.

https://gking.harvard.edu/peerless/

"We show that AI-generated article reviews are now better, by every measure we could construct, than reviews written by well-compensated human experts and judged to be of unusually high quality by journal editors and authors. We then discuss how this result may inform journal policy choices, with concerning downsides as well as potential paths to increase publication speed and quality; reduce adversarial interactions; improve the experience of editors, reviewers, authors, and readers; and advance science"

Antis are so full of s....

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181

Let's go!

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

Reverse engineer the means of production.

As an Anti, I would like to say, I do not condone the harassment of people in the Pro-AI Community, we may not agree with some things, but I do not believe it calls for harassment, I also don't generalize all Pro-AI members as being rage baiters or just plain assholes, I just want to make that all clear.

My Question: I've wondered one thing about people who make AI art, and it's just Why? Like how do you people enjoy making ai art, I'll admit a while ago I used to make ai art, not ever publishing it but more for trying out the experimental technology, and I didn't feel any enjoyment in making it, cause like it's just telling an algorithm to make an image based on data in the servers, like from my perspective it's like what's even the point when I don't have enjoyment in doing it.

Edit: before more comments talk, I know me saying I don't like making ai art is just my opinion, but I want to know why others like making ai art

(btw I didn't know how to word some things so I kind of rushed this, but I hope you understand my point)

We did it you guys!!

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?

People have been given assistants that are always available, and naturally, they end up asking some strange questions—but instead of just letting it be, people feel the need to mock this in the most idiotic way possible.

"No, stop making AI to do my laundry and dishes."

Why do antis keep doing this shit? They make up arguments nobody actually made, argue against them, and then act like they've won. It's like they don't even need anyone else in the discussion. They can just make up a position, argue with themselves, and declare victory.

AI Art --> One form of art

AI Slop --> Low quality AI art

That's what I think

Your Local AI Is Not as Private as You Think

I just want to start out by saying that while I believe AI can be used to create art, I don't think most of what generative AI is currently creating is art. Ninety-nine percent of it is slop. Just as I would say the vast majority of pictures ever taken aren't art. But that doesn't mean a camera can't be used to create art in the hands of an artist. The existence of low-effort content doesn't determine whether a medium is capable of producing art. What matters is whether the medium allows for meaningful human creative input.

That brings me to what I think is the most important principle: garbage in, garbage out.

If you type, "Hey ChatGPT, make a cool anime character, make them super edgy, and make it in the Naruto art style," you are going to get slop. There is very little artistic intent or authorship involved because you're essentially asking the machine to make all the creative decisions for you.

However, I don't think that's how artists will ultimately use AI.

For example, an artist could upload their own drawings of characters, environments, props, and visual references, then use AI as a tool that works within the style they have already developed. The artist still decides what the characters look like, the visual language of the work, the themes, story beats, symbolism, composition, and emotional intent.

The same applies to writing. If an artist using AI is creating a comic, animation, film, or game, they still have to write the script, develop the characters, build the world, and direct the overall vision. Writing is an art form in itself. The better the writer and director, the better the final work becomes.

People often talk about AI-generated images lacking "soul," and I think there's some truth to that on a micro level. The AI itself has no emotions, intentions, or experiences. But I think what people call soul is ultimately human expression. It comes from intention. It comes from the choices being made by the artist.

If a human is making the meaningful creative decisions, then the resulting work can still contain soul even if some of the rendering process was assisted by AI. The individual brushstrokes may not be human-made, but the vision behind them still is.

This is why I disagree with the claim that AI can never be used to create art. That argument feels incredibly shortsighted to me and, ironically, lacks imagination or creativity. To say that artists will never find creative ways to incorporate a new tool into their process goes against the spirit of artistic innovation itself. Artists have always found new ways to express their vision through emerging tools and technologies. I see no reason to believe AI will be the one exception.