Yesterday, I saw a video on the topic of AI witch hunts, and why it’s a problem. It was by a neurodivergent creator named Ches Is Hyperfixating (and shoutout to her for creating a thoughtful take on this situation!).

In the video, she talked about how writers are being accused of using AI no matter what they do. Regardless of whether they’ve ever touched an AI tool or not, they’re facing accusations from suspicious readers who claim they can easily spot AI text. It’s creating a great deal of stress and reputational damages for authors, to the point where one of them sued a reader for libel from a false accusation.

Ches brought up an important point: most people aren’t that good at detecting AI writing, and there’s very little nuance in the judgment. Often, people lump someone using AI for grammar help, brainstorming, or research into the same category as someone sharing a completely AI-generated work, but those are actually two very different things.

Today, I’d like to go deeper into this topic, because I’ve been thinking about it for a while. I’d like to share my thoughts on where we can improve in dealing with AI and the way we see it in creative work.

(To make it easier to talk about these subjects, I’m using the term “No AI” when referring to people who believe no AI should be used at all in creative work.)

My Own Changing Views

I began as someone who was really resistant to any use of AI in creative work, and at first, I felt that “human-only” movements were important to protect the integrity of art. I do think a lot of these “No AI” groups and initiatives started from a good place. There is way too much stuff on the internet that’s completely AI-generated, and it was starting to make it harder to find human work.

Artists were also rightfully concerned and upset about how the people running AI companies were making tons of money off of their labor, training AI on their own hard work without permission.

But as time went on, my views began to change on AI and art. I met a disabled writer who uses AI to help her write and publish her stories, and many of them were beautifully written. I didn’t have the heart to be against her for using AI to help her express herself.

I came across another artist using AI for world-building, but his ideas were his own and they came out in a very creative way. Because he was open and honest about how he used AI, I felt he still had artistic integrity.

I began to experiment with using AI myself for brainstorming, and I found it was actually really helpful in that area. I could explore different “what if?” situations about a topic or a story.

AI also helped me to see my own art and its potential future in new ways. I could make parallels between what I’m doing as an experimental artist, and how earlier artists from different generations would test new technology and see what it could do (such as Jimi Hendrix, who experimented with many electronic gadgets throughout his career to change the sound of his guitar).

Where the “No AI” Groups Fall Short

I still value human creativity for how unique and original it is, and that hasn’t changed. But my view on the “No AI” groups has evolved a lot. I’ve watched as I’ve seen many artists and writers face intense and often hateful witch hunts from people who suspect “AI use”, even if there’s no indication any AI was used at all. What’s troubled me the most is that many of their targets are writers of color.

As an example, Mia Ballard was castigated over AI use in her novel “Shy Girl”. It turned out that a friend used AI to edit her novel before sending it to the publisher, and Mia herself hadn’t ever used AI tools for her story, but the damage was done. Unfortunately, Mia had signed her publishing rights over to Hachette Book Group, who unceremoniously dropped her because they didn’t want to deal with the controversy.

The good news is that Mia is learning to tune out the hate, and she’s rebuilding her career. But she went through an unnecessary hailstorm of backlash just because of an honest mistake. People accused her of using AI for everything, even though that wasn’t true.

This is the problem I’ve noticed with the “No AI” side. They say they want to protect artistic integrity and human work, and some people may indeed be sincere about that. But all too often, I’ve seen these high ideals devolve into witch hunts that cause tremendous stress and damage to the victims of them.

There’s also very little nuance in these attacks. No one thinks of different situations and uses for AI, such as a neurodivergent author using it to help organize her ideas, a person using AI for brainstorming, or a disabled writer using AI tools to tell her stories. Instead, all AI use is lumped under one banner, and it’s all considered equally bad (and obviously, this isn’t true in the real world).

Writers and Artists of Color Seem to Be Bearing the Brunt of AI Detection

Another problem I’ve noticed in the “No AI” mindset, which I mentioned earlier, is that it seems writers and artists of color are facing the most intense scrutiny.

For example, Simbarashe Kundizeza has been accused of using AI to write his short story, The Blue Fighter. This was right after he won the 2026 Caine prize for African literature. Now he’s facing threats to his career, even though he’s said he never used AI for the story at all.

Seun Matiluko, who wrote about how Black writers are urging each other to save evidence their work was human-made, said an important quote on the issue of these witch hunts. She pointed out that the bloodlust surrounding these kinds of stories is truly unnerving, and we should question what their goal is. Is it really to protect literature as a human innovation, or is it to start personal attacks and go viral?

When we consider how most AI detectors aren’t even that accurate, it shows we should be very careful before we make impulsive accusations.

People Claim They Want Transparency, But Then Attack the Messenger

Another strange thing I’ve noticed about AI witch hunts is that some people claim they wouldn’t start them if “creators were just transparent about it”. I myself have been transparent about how I sometimes use AI as a brainstorming tool, but all my creative work goes through my own hands. However, the irony is that it seems transparency is not actually what some people want, since they’re still judgmental anyway.

It becomes a double-bind. If you don’t mention you use AI, people accuse you of being dishonest and hiding the truth. But if you do mention you use AI, you still face judgment and attacks from people who don’t like the fact you use it! That really doesn’t make sense when you think about it.

The end result is that less people are actually going to want to be transparent, since they’ll face backlash either way. It’s the exact opposite outcome that “No AI” groups want, but it’s a very logical outcome.

You Can Have A Preference, But That Doesn’t Mean You’re Allowed to Destroy Someone’s Life

There’s nothing wrong with having a preference for human-made art and writing over AI-generated work. For example, I’ve found AI-generated images are often rather glossy and too “perfect”. I prefer seeing someone’s brush strokes or pencil marks, because it feels more real.

But I’m not going to attack someone who generates an AI image for their profile picture. That’s their decision, and I’m not going to destroy their life with it.

If you accuse someone of using AI when they actually haven’t done so, or if they only used it for brainstorming instead of generating the work, you could actually open yourself up to a defamation lawsuit. So in trying to destroy someone else’s life, you may end up destroying your own.

The Path I’m Taking

We’re in very uncertain times right now around AI and its role in creative work. I think it’s good to think carefully about how we can value and cherish our human creativity, even with the advanced tools around us. But I also think we can do that without attacking artists and writers who use AI for different purposes.

If we have more nuance around how we view AI, we’ll start recognizing creatives can use this tool while staying authentic in their work. We’ll understand that not everyone uses AI to simply offload their own thinking or creative abilities. Some may use it to research or find new ways of seeing an artistic idea.

As an independent artist, one of my advantages is that I’m not reliant on traditional structures, such as a publishing house, to get my work out into the world. At this time, I’m not signed to any contracts that would limit my freedom to experiment and explore in my own way. So the path I’m choosing is to be transparent in my own experimentation with AI, since I don’t feel I have anything to hide.

By being honest, it also gives my audience the option to choose whether they want to be involved with my work or not. They have the freedom to pick their preference. However, if they choose not to be involved, I won’t stop creating. My path is my own, and I want to see where it takes me.

I remember reading that some artists are more focused on making their work accessible for a popular audience to understand, while others simply go on their own path, whether you can accept it or not. An artist like Hendrix went on the second path, and I’m on a similar journey.

Here are some of the sources I used to write about the AI witch hunt situations. They’re useful for understanding the actual impact of them, and how some writers and artists of color are facing biased suspicions.

Matiluko, S. (2026, October 15). I’m ‘under threat’ because AI thinks black writers aren’t human. The Observer. https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/im-under-threat-because-ai-thinks-black-writers-arent-human

FP Lifestyle Desk. (2026, August 8). AI accusations against authors of color spark debate over bias in publishing. First Post. https://www.firstpost.com/lifestyle/ai-accusations-against-authors-of-colour-spark-debate-over-bias-in-publishing-14036860.html

“Writers Are Being Accused of Using AI - No Matter What They Do” by Ches Is Hyperfixating

“Me and My AI Against the World” by Jerry Falade (A truly emotional story about how an African author from the Yoruba culture faced suspicions because of his language’s natural similarities with AI’s patterns. Jerry refers to “AI” as his African Intellect against the world.)