Try to stop calling people you disagree with a "religion". It's within reason to believe that AI can have a technically useful place in the creative process and it's within reason to believe that AI should not be anywhere in the creative process as a principled opinion.

Also, the framing of "winning the cultural debate" is telling. Typically this refers to what will happen, not what should happen. I.e. it's basically just saying, "I think what will happen is what I want to happen", not an actual argument for why you want it. It's a red flag that you are arguing from a tribalistic position (or "religious", you could say).

> The prospects of making a living in the midlist are unbelievably bad, and getting worse.

Sure, but it's not an excuse for making the world a shittier place by publishing more AI content. It's very known that AIs have agreement bias and mostly agree with you.

44% of new music uploaded to Deezer is AI generated.

Source: https://newsroom-deezer.com/2026/04/ai-generated-tracks-repr...

Also she said 4 years ago that "literature is not for idiots". I don't think calling people names is a good way of promoting your content. And now she's complaining that the amount of people reading her works is declining?

Furthermore, she accused academic teachers of narrow thinking (apparently calling people 'idiots' wasn't enough). Honestly, Andrzej Dragan works [1] are arguably more important, but who am I to judge?

[1] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeqEKD_20RZoMRPCZ39ZPd8oP...

Maybe she instead of glazing herself should get a reality check.

Also see this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48196708