A lot of online outrage starts the same way: with a short, matter-of-fact post that suddenly gets read as a manifesto. That’s essentially what happened when Piet Sielck (IRON SAVIOR) addressed the use of AI tools in connection with the band’s recent online singles — a clarification that somehow snowballed into accusations, boycotts, and a full-blown ethical tribunal in the comments.
So before discussing whether the reaction was justified, it’s worth starting with the most basic question:
What Was the Post Actually About?
Piet’s original message wasn’t a grand endorsement of AI, nor a declaration of artistic revolution. It was a clarification — and a surprised one at that. He wrote:
“I recently posted, that AI tools were involved up to a limited degree for our recent online singles. The shit storm that emerged from that took me completely by surprise.”
He immediately pushed back against the idea that AI use is inherently immoral:
“Where does all this hate come from? AI isn’t pure evil. Whether it’s evil or not is decided by the user.”
At the same time, he acknowledged that the technology raises real concerns:
“There are no ethical standards yet and that is a problem.”
What clearly frustrated him most, however, was the assumption of bad faith — the idea that any use of AI automatically equals theft or exploitation:
“The assumption that everyone who uses AI is a bad person stealing from others with the help of a trained machine is simply unfair and wrong. I have never done this and will never do so.”
As the tone of the replies escalated, Piet ultimately removed the post entirely, explaining:
“I have deleted this post because I am not willing to take this intolerance and hate by people who haven’t even read exactly what I wrote and pointed out.”
That’s the core of it. No claim of replacing artists. No AI-generated albums. No dismissal of ethics. Just a limited use of tools — and a refusal to be painted as a villain for it.
Why the Backlash Was So Intense
Despite those clarifications, many commenters reacted as if AI use itself were an unforgivable line. Some framed it as laziness, others as theft, others as environmental harm, and some as a cultural betrayal of what metal “should” be.
One particularly blunt response summed up the hardline position:
“It’s lazy, it often uses stolen assets, it’s always worse than something made by an artist… I will definitely not be listening to anything with an AI cover.”
Others escalated the discussion into a future where AI replaces musicians entirely, challenging Piet directly with hypotheticals about AI-generated Iron Savior albums — to which he responded half-jokingly:
“Actually I don’t think that AI will be as good as us 😉 so I don’t fear the competition.”
That comment itself became another flashpoint, interpreted by critics as dismissive or privileged — even though Piet reiterated, more than once, that he was not using AI to create artwork and had no interest in replacing human artists.
Eventually, the discussion stopped being a discussion at all. As Piet put it in his final reply:
“You are NOT listening and just want to make your point no matter what.”
The Bigger Picture: Why This Conversation Keeps Going Wrong
What this episode really illustrates is how AI discourse collapses context. A mention of “limited AI tools” becomes, in the public imagination, an endorsement of art theft, environmental destruction, and corporate surveillance — regardless of scale, intent, or actual use.
At the same time, critics aren’t inventing their concerns. AI has been used unethically. It does consume enormous resources. And visual artists, in particular, have been hit hard by systems trained on their work without consent.
The problem is that individual musicians become symbolic stand-ins for systemic issues they didn’t create and can’t control.
Metal has been here before. Programmed drums, digital amps, DAWs, even click tracks were once treated as betrayals of authenticity. None of those debates were resolved overnight — and none were resolved by shouting people down.
No Verdict, Just Reality
Piet Sielck didn’t ask to be the face of the AI debate. He clarified a workflow detail — and found himself in the middle of a cultural anxiety storm.
Whether AI becomes a footnote, a tool, or a long-term problem for music remains to be seen. What’s clear already is this: if the conversation starts with assumptions instead of quotes, it’s guaranteed to end in noise.
And metal already has enough of that — the good kind included.
