Pluto in Aquarius, Substack, and the Illusion of "Real" Writing
Substack bringing in AI scanners to police its writers isn’t just news for tech blogs. If you look at the sky right now, it is the most obvious sign yet that the opening act of Pluto in Aquarius has arrived.
Pluto brings the uncomfortable shadow work, and Aquarius rules networks, technology, and the collective mind. Put them together, and you get a direct collision with the tools we built. But if this panic feels familiar, that’s because we’ve lived through this exact storyline before.
Cast your mind back to when digital cameras and Photoshop hit the scene.
When darkroom chemicals and film rolls gave way to megapixels and airbrush tools, people threw a fit. Purists swore that digital photography wasn’t “real” art, that Photoshop was cheating, and that the soul of photography was dying. We fretted over manipulated pixels the same way we now freak out over generated text.
What we’re seeing with AI isn’t unprecedented. It’s a repeat performance—a familiar cycle of technological anxiety playing out on a higher, faster loop.
Back then, the shift from film to digital was driven by Uranus and Neptune reshaping how we capture reality. Today, Pluto in Aquarius is taking that same shift and pushing it to its logical extreme. We went from retouching an image to generating the entire photo out of thin air. We went from spellcheck and word processors to software that writes the essay for you.
Substack’s knee-jerk reaction—using Pangram to scan text while asking writers to fill out a “How I make this” disclosure box—is textbook Aquarian shadow. It tries to fix a tech problem with more tech, while shifting the burden of proof onto the creator. Just like early digital photographers had to prove their RAW files weren’t heavily manipulated, writers now have to plead their case to a corporate portal to prove they actually typed their own words.
That friction is where Saturn and Neptune in Aries come in. Aries is about the raw fight to exist as yourself, while Saturn brings heavy boundaries and Neptune deals with fake illusions. We are being squeezed from both sides. The platform demands a paper trail for your authenticity, while the machine copycats grow more convincing by the day.
Eventually, the photography world moved past the panic. People realized that a digital sensor doesn’t make a good composition on its own, and Photoshop doesn’t give you a vision. The medium changed, but the burden of having something real to say remained entirely on the human holding the camera.
The same thing will happen here.
A machine can predict what word comes next, but it has nothing at stake. It doesn’t get tired, worry about rent, sit in traffic, or lose sleep over a bad conversation. It has no life to speak from.
As the internet gets louder and more automated, platforms will keep adding layers of verification. But no badge, disclosure box, or scanning software can actually guarantee truth. The only real way forward is to write with so much grounded, messy reality that no algorithm could ever fake it.
LOL! Pangram says this is one hundred percent AI. Believe what you want.


Hi Catharine,
I would like some clarity here please.
I am under the impression that what you write is not tainted by ai and that you are opposed to its use outside of research. Is this true?
Also, I just saw an article by Jade Teta that you ‘liked,’ and he admits to using ai to make it. I recently had an argument with him and a student of his which they did not like having and they blocked me for my assertions rather than being open to discussing them.
Did you know he used ai?
Thanks, Parisse