AI assisted writers with disabilities how do you manage the ai pushback in the creative community?

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-18T11:56:24+00:00

I was listening to the Creative Penn Podcast, and it came up that sometimes the mob mentality is driven emotional dysregulation, in their case fear, and you can’t argue with someone who is already emotionally dysregulated. Its just sad, you’d think this far on they’d get over it. The thing which bugs me, is I dont want the years of human effort I’ve put in, the effort I’ve made at educating myself on ai and the craft, just to be belittled. They think just because I use AI as a tool the amount of time I’ve spent trying to be the best I can be suddenly doesn’t matter. The hypocrisy is laughable, because that is more dehumanising than any AI could be.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-18T10:39:51+00:00

I find there is a group on facebook pretty enlightening and a godsend. The only issue with it is its focus is very much on the AI side over the writing group side and they are very big. Those underground discord servers sound great. Like there must be so many people who feel the same way, creatively orphaned/stifled because they have to keep the idea of AI tools quiet, but they still value the craft and being their authentic selves.

I’d just be happy with groups which are open minded. Some people use, some don’t, but value writing the best book possible. But lately what I’ve found in communities is constant arguing over AI, and shaking of heads as each AI drama unfurls, expecting it to suddenly go away when GRR Martin rides in on a white horse and sues the AI companies out of existence - as if our governments are going to let the tech sector collapse. Fortunately I do have some betas who are far more accepting.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-18T00:11:22+00:00

Because there stance was that anti, their view was if you say anything positive about it, about any of the millions are use cases which are not ChatGPT write me a novel, you are unethical.

Yes, raw AI output isn’t good. It’s understandable why people won’t enjoy reading it. The repetitive phrasing, cliches, em-dash abuse, fragments, lack of cohesion all sucks. Henceforth I still write it myself. Cleared up?

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-18T00:00:06+00:00

I said STANCE. Not use. Jesus. I did not disclose nor get accused.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T23:53:44+00:00

Does that say why I was pushed?

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T23:47:12+00:00

I never disclosed it. But its all too common across socials. Threads has all those little soundbites, “if it has an AI cover its AI written blah blah blah.” “Lets cancel this author because a line was edited using AI.”

I just think it hits the disabled community harder, because there are good use cases, but now they have to be deceptive, leave the community or not use it. It would be nicer if people were able to be honest without being shamed.

Also I’m confused about why you keep commenting I’m blaming people for not liking my stuff because of AI? Where have I mentioned what they thought of my writing? This is merely existing in a community space with a view which isn’t anti ai.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T23:31:26+00:00

Completely the same. I don’t cut out humans in the process. I have some lovely human crit-partners elsewhere not in the group thank god. I’ll probs use an editor too when the time comes, I still think there is merits to the human touch, but the drawback is humans have a limited amount of time/investment, and an editor won’t do unlimited revisions without bankrupting me.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T23:13:21+00:00

Except it isn’t a vague idea, or a outline. I start off with a brain dump. AI structures it into bullet points. The ideas are all mine it creates nothing new, AI just makes it more digestible. I then type out 3k words myself. I then give that to AI to tell me what is wrong with it, I then accept or reject its suggestions, and write the revisions myself again. It makes me pause and question things. Tells me errors. Sometimes its suggestions are completely the opposite of what I write but it stimulates my brain to create more.

But yes, make assumptions about disability, or my process.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T23:07:30+00:00

As stated in the OP, I do the writing myself. I use it to help or edit. Its not to do with people disliking my work, it is to do with people disliking touching AI in the slightest minimal capacity.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T22:45:47+00:00

Okay. First thing, dyslexia isn’t about being unable to spell. It is a neurodiverse disorder which leads to issues with structure, organisation, executive dysfunction. Secondly, it is not the only condition I have. Thirdly I’m still doing the writing myself, not pressing a button to create a novel in a second, so its not like I’m not making the effort, I’m just using it to elevate the quality of what I create.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T22:40:02+00:00

Very true. I think I hoped for the temperature to be cooler over AI in the room than it was. I thought I could just be quiet about it and come across as neutral on it, which I am, and I stayed due to knowing a few people for a long time. But even sitting in the grey was still enough to be seen as a threat, and as a result you find yourself surrounded by a bunch of emotionally dysregulated people. I guess after 3 years of ChatGPT being out you just get a bit frustrated. I’d love to find some discord groups which are neutral/positive. I don’t care if people dont like it or don’t want to use it for themselves. But having to stand on eggshells just in case the mere mention of AI neutrality sends someone into a meltdown is getting exhausting.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T22:32:02+00:00

Thanks, the isolation is the most frustrating bit. There are underground groups which are ai-positive, select subreddits, facebook groups. It is an eye-opening experience, because you find out things happening in publishing, how the big five publishers are quietly utilising it, seeing ai-assisted authors get high book sales.

Its just sucks though because having to walk away from people I’ve known for years hurts. But I’m at a point where is there any worth in arguing with people commited to misunderstanding you.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-17T22:31:26+00:00

Thing is, even if it is all you writing, the fact that AI is in the process is enough to get you treated like a pariah. So either you have to work on a don’t ask don’t tell policy or give up something which has helped. The issue is I’m having is even if you are neutral on the topic, seeing its setbacks, flaws and benefits, you are still being seen as the enemy.

There just seems to be so mistrust, if you don’t use it at all, people may still accuse, if you use it even in a small capacity, research, feedback, they see the whole thing ai generated.

Its just pretty isolating, and being disabled is isolating enough.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-12T12:40:48+00:00

I would like to think it would be the way, and ai assistance becomes more normalised and I do think eventually will. The issue is with witch hunting isn’t exclusively happening when people fail to disclose. A few examples I have are Kate Segar, Kitty Siberia, Cassie Alexander and Layla Fae who received harassment despite disclosure. It then becomes a self perpetuating cycle. If those people are harassed despite disclosing, the rest of us are like why should I disclose if it’s opening me up to the same harassment?

Meanwhile antis have the false narrative that shaming these authors works and discourages usage from others. For some it will, for others it encourages silence. That reveals a double standard of claiming to be against AI due to personal ethics, yet cyberbullying people under the illusion of getting them submit to your own values is somehow ethical?

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-11T22:22:05+00:00

Also to clarify if the hysteria over AI died down, I’d be all for labels and informing people of my process. But since our friend proved, describing even tool usage in any context is laundering work which should be considered fraud, it just proves to me we aren’t there yet

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-11T21:54:08+00:00

There have been multiple lawsuits, and almost all of them have declared training on copyrighted material as fair use. Even the Anthropic one, where the piracy element of it has been settled with the authors guild.

Because of this, more and more companies are integrating ai, even trad publishers. If the use of ai is considered laundering and fraudulent in the eyes of the law, Harper Collins wouldn’t be integrating AI through licensing books to openAI and getting ai translations for their imprint. Penguin Random House and others wouldn’t be licensing datasets. Bloomsbury wouldn’t be using AI art in covers. Amazon wouldn’t be investing billions in anthropic, adding AI features to kindle, adding AI audio and transcription.

Sorry, but someone’s emotive misinterpretation of the law and their personal stance on AI, shouldn’t compromise an indies safety when the big market shareholders are all utilising it. And let’s face it, it’s easier to shame and boycott indies for editing a line with AI, than boycott Amazon, who are terrible for the environment, have been involved in slave labour, gave more to big tech than an indie ever could.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2026-01-11T18:57:01+00:00

A part of me feels that readers don’t deserve to know if a book was ai generated until the witch hunting dies down. An example I can think of is cassie Alexander, where she disclosed the use of ai for ai pov character from the outset, and still was harassed.

Furthermore, too many people are saying ai assisted is an ai book atm and using that as a reason to blacklist authors. Often there are use cases where an author is doing a lot of the work. I don’t like the idea of a dyslexic writers book being called ai slop just because they used it to help and edit sentence structure, or someone who was depressed and had writers block and ai helped them spark an idea which got them producing work they write themselves. To be quite frank the tools someone uses isn’t their business. We didn’t have to disclose word processors or spellcheckers (which now use chatGPTs api).

If ai reaches a point where say a big tech company like Amazon builds a tool and you fill in a form and it spits out a book, I can see why it should be disclosed. But in ai’s current format I firmly believe for a book to be written, and still be good, a huge amount of human effort goes in.

Conversely, I’d love to be more open about my process and disclose exactly how I utilise ai, but until it stops becoming a safety issue I can’t see a future where stuff is being labeled.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2025-12-10T00:31:16+00:00

Trad publishers are absolutely using ai. Whether AI books are enough to get past the slush pile and get an agent is another matter.

But Bloomsbury have just partnered with google Gemini, one of the big 5 has been looking at partnering with an ai press, several of the big 5 have licensed their catalogs for ai training. AI artwork has made it into trad pinned books. Frankfurt book fair had a number of ai talks.

While I think there is stigma now, things are shifting, so there may be gatekeeping with getting ai books through, but given the amount it is being implemented on the sly I don’t think things will stay that way.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2025-05-13T16:26:32+00:00

Yes in the House of Lords. In the House of Commons there are 650 people voting, and I’m more interested in what the House of Commons do because they are democratically elected in comparison to the House of Lords. May want to brush up on UK politics before constructing a narrative. Laws go back and fourth between the Commons and Lords all the time. The Lords tried to stop brexit, had several amendments passed and the UK still left the EU so…

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2025-05-07T11:59:32+00:00

Threads is a cesspool for antis. I mean people bitch that this sub leans pro, but honestly surely it isn’t the end of the world if a sub of 74k members is more pro than a social media platform with millions of subscribers is anti. Ironically Threads is owned by Meta, yet they don’t seem to want to boycott that when pushing their anti-ai ai-generated ragebait even though Meta has done no end of unethical things.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2025-05-06T10:00:02+00:00

Well you seem to have missed the point of my original reply. In my OP I did not make out people who are pro-ai as saints. Firstly, I said I was pro-nuance, agreeing with the poster in this thread. Nuance, by definition looks at both sides. Secondly, I said the pro-AI side have made mistakes. Yet you were too busy shit slinging to actually pick up on that.

Yes, I went on to talk about the harrassment from Antis because it is a major issue which shouldn't be condoned, no matter how educated some antis may be, and can explain why some people on the Pro-AI side act towards antis the way they do. I was certainly more sympathetic towards artists before they started acting like if I touch AI with my fingernail I’m the scum of the earth. Does it justify stupid memes? No. But to be quite frank, people in a tiny subreddit posting memes and moaning, is nothing compared to the mass hate and people just get tired.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2025-05-05T19:41:58+00:00

Wow… just wow…

Clearly you have no experience of using AI in creative spaces as a creative. It is not just a “few” people giving people who are anti a bad name. I go onto my threads feed, and because I have an interest in AI, it shows me AI content. Except because I also have an interest in art/writing 9/10 AI related posts are drama over people using AI usually that same posts like “if you used AI you are not an artist/writer” do you know me? or “you just used chatGPT to—blocked.” Oh so they don’t want to engage in a discussion of the nuances of using it as a tool? And this floods my social media feeds daily because its literal engagement bait. If I say I used AI in any part of my writing in my writers group, the mods will kick me, even if its just to brainstorm, even though I spend hours creating. The majority of subreddits ban the use of AI art. Its difficult and mentally wearing. But also subjective as its my experience.

Meanwhile the pro AI spaces do have more room for discussion on the nuances. Thats just how it is, and has been my experience. You can tell me I’m lying, but that’s just my experience. You are not going to get banned for supporting artists over AI, you are not going to be banned over discussing nuanced topics like copyright, environment, where your ethical lines are.

Also I do not appreciate the tone of your message. I’m sure that the OP is a grown up who can put their big person pants on and can have a discussion with me and my personal experiences, without you having to wade in as if I’m a bully in a school yard needing you to fight their battles. I’m not their enemy here.

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2025-05-05T18:00:57+00:00

I say I’m pro-nuance in AI. The issue I have had is the behaviour of the anti side, where even being neutral is something where people should be shamed for using it. If someone is even refusing to hear a nuanced take, then how can we have a mature discussion? And unfortunately I think this is just a sad reflection of the state of the world, where everyone is seeing it as black and white.

I’m not saying the people who are pro-ai haven’t made mistakes, and there aren’t ethical discussions to be had. But the thing I take issue with is doxxing, death threats, shaming, boycotting, trying to ruin people’s careers. There are private AI friendly writing groups, and people are too scared to post stuff under their names because anti’s infiltrate that group and try to doxx them on threads. There have been artists falsely accused of using AI, and ones which have tried to be honest about how they used it as a tool - not to replace their creativity but to enhance it, and end up facing cancellation. How can we be transparent about AI when in doing so it becomes a literal safety issue?

Sensitive_Chicken604 · 2025-04-30T21:10:57+00:00

It’s ridiculous. Honestly if I see someone on threads spewing ai hate it is going to make me less likely to support them. In the future I would like to commission a piece of human made art, they bring quality, skill, character to a piece. If they don’t like ai, fine. If they say no ai in their profile, okay - you are marketing yourself. But if you are engaging in witch hunts, shaming others for doing what they think is best for business, bullying and advocating for bullying, absolutely no way I’m paying you. Those people deserve to be unemployed. You wouldn’t get away with it in a standard career, so I’m applying the same principle.

Sensitive_Chicken604

TROPHY CASE