Why We're Banning AI

An editor announces a firm, explicit ban on AI-produced content: no AI-written text and no AI-generated illustrations will appear in future issues, grounded in a commitment to handmade journalism, paid human labor, and printed magazines. The rationale is defensive and ideological - protecting human thought and creativity from being commodified into cheap, high-volume “content” that erodes quality and destroys livelihoods. The decision follows a new union contract and expresses contempt for media executives who embrace generative systems to cut costs, arguing that profit-seeking firms are incentivized to replace paid writers and artists with automated output regardless of accuracy, craft, or audience trust.

The piece backs up the policy with concrete examples and consequences: some outlets openly pivot to AI, others have published AI-written pieces deceptively, and creative employment has plunged (citing over 200,000 lost jobs in four years in creative fields). Game studios and publishers are already using full AI asset workflows, and models have been trained on artists’ stolen work, reducing pay and opportunities for creators. The ban still permits limited tool use for research or small edits, but not replacement; it frames the nonprofit, unionized operation as proof that media can prioritize workers and quality over automation and urges readers to support publications that refuse AI-driven “slop.”