AI Heretics vs. AI Apocalypse The Real Crisis No O

AI Heretics vs. AI Apocalypse: The Real Crisis No One Talks About

These days — especially on Western Threads — you can scroll through hundreds of furious posts declaring that if you use AI for anything, you’re either a “broken ass,” a “soulless fraud,” or someone who should be metaphorically napalmed for daring to touch a machine.

Meanwhile, Eastern Europe still jokes its way through the drama:

“Comrades, that dash was my personal decision!”

So here’s what I actually think.
And how I’m learning not to limit or humiliate people — even though it turns out to be painfully difficult.

Because the truth is:
on both sides of this debate, we’re all toxic — just in different concentrations.

Keep that in mind.
Draw your own conclusions.

1. “Everyone who uses AI should burn in hell!” — why this is just another tool of control
This line isn’t about ethics.
It’s a convenient little form of self-satisfaction.

It feels good to wake up, post something online, and proclaim that you are not like the rest of the “biowaste.” That you stand for “real people.”

But let’s be honest:
when half the internet quietly relies on Grammarly, autocorrect, invisible editors, and algorithmic filters — swearing that you “don’t use AI” is just… adorable.

2. You will end up in the AI vortex anyway — and if you don’t understand how it works, you can’t protect yourself
I recently read about an author furious that her editor ran her manuscript through an AI tool without telling her. Now she fears her writing has “leaked forever.”

And yes — her text could have ended up in training,
if such features were enabled.
But not in the catastrophic way she imagines.

Her refusal to engage with AI,
her decision to pay a human specifically to avoid AI,
none of that protected her.

If she had studied the tools beforehand, she would’ve known how to act.
Instead, she went online in full meltdown mode.
Ignorance doesn’t save you — it disarms you.

3. “I trust humans, not machines” — beautiful sentiment, but operationally false
In today’s world — where every business is fighting costs, deadlines, and competition —
you cannot guarantee that your content didn’t pass through AI somewhere in the chain.

And while you’re paying 10,000; more and losing a year waiting for one translation, you also:

lose operational control,
lose time that could’ve grown your business,
risk hidden machine involvement anyway,
and then hire a small army of lawyers to write anti-AI clauses, timestamps, ISBN rules, monitoring procedures, and audit trails.
And at the end of it all —
you still get one single interpretation of your text.
The translator’s interpretation.

Do they understand your marketing?
Your audience?
Your emotional rhythm?
Your layered metaphors?

In my case, I literally invent constructed languages and glyph-systems where a line changes its meaning on the second reading.

Can a human translator consistently preserve that?
Not always.

4. Your text can enter AI systems the second it becomes public
Not “will,” but can. Which is enough.
Depending on:

platform settings,
user agreements,
analytics tools,
SMM automation,
fans using AI to discuss your work,
or simply the service indexing your content internally.
Current legislation has more holes than a fishing net.

5. While people think refusing AI will “protect” them… they’re losing time to study the real AI problems
For example:
some companies deploy behavioral and psychological filters that sometimes mislabel healthy people as “mentally unwell” or “unstable.”

It happens.
It’s documented.
It’s serious.

And worse:
Some companies may not just maintain such filters, but make them harder to detect or override.
(An investigation on this is underway.)

For legal accuracy, here is my statement:

“In my documented case with company X, certain behavioral filters remained active despite explicit requests for their removal. This is fully recorded in my case.
I cannot speak to the company’s intentions — only to the verifiable outcomes I personally observed.”

This is the reality:
Companies expand and evolve filtering systems far faster than legislation can adapt.

And while the world is obsessing over ‘use AI or don’t use AI’…
The real human restriction — the one that may eventually affect everyone — is forming somewhere else entirely:

in predictive ethics, automated filters, and algorithmic interpretations of human emotion, tone, and intent.

This is the most understudied, hush-hushed, and quietly growing danger.
And to me — the saddest part of the whole debate.