D***ed If You Do: What Happens When You Give the Anti-AI Crowd Exactly What They Asked For

In his March 2026 Substack post “D***ed If You Do: What Happens When You Give the Anti-AI Crowd Exactly What They Asked For,” author Chad Rye describes the backlash he received after doing precisely what AI critics have long demanded: total transparency.

Rye openly shared his full process. He detailed handwritten chapter synopses (sometimes thousands of words long) mapping character arcs, themes, and beats; heavy collaboration with Claude; extensive revisions; and final editorial control. He estimates he contributes 75–85 % of the creative work and even posted photos of his handwritten notes.

Instead of sparking honest conversation, the response was relentless goalpost-moving. Critics dismissed his planning as “not real writing,” called him a plagiarist or mere technician, and labeled him a “Climate Destroyer.” Rye calmly rebuts the environmental attacks with data: AI’s footprint (roughly 0.3–0.4 % of global CO₂ and far less water use than cotton, beef, or golf courses) pales beside fast fashion’s 8–10 % of global emissions and massive industrial pollution. He argues the outrage isn’t truly environmental it’s a cultural war.

Rye concludes the anti-AI crowd never wanted transparency; they simply reject any AI involvement in storytelling. He compares their rigid gatekeeping to the Pharisees and vows to keep writing with AI anyway.

It’s a clear-eyed, firsthand account from an indie author who tried to meet critics on their own terms and discovered the debate isn’t about honesty, craft, or the environment, but ideology.