I don't know your specific case so I can't comment on that.

But my idea about using AI in Hive I expressed in my article and in the comments to that one. Unfortunately the most interesting in Italian which is my native language and I don't have fluent English.
On the contrary, in this regard, I immediately state, to avoid misunderstandings, that in my answer I am receiving support from AI (Google Translator, yes, that too is an algorithm, i.e. an AI).

Summing up:

 1. The criminalization of the use of AI is due to ignorance
 2. AI is a tool and a tool cannot be judged, only the use made of it.
 3. automatic voting is also an AI
 4. Hive posts should be judged on the quality and level of interaction of the author.
 5. The author's interaction level is not helped by the use of AI
 6. on Hive there are many posts that are voted without having any or poor quality, and the AI ​​does not make the situation worse
 7. indicating the use of AI is a principle of transparency but it does not seem fundamental to me especially if the AI was used only to support and not to write the entire article
 8. I see many posts, even from whales or important characters on Hive, which report images without indicating the source, although it is clear they are taken from the web. Is it less serious than using AI?
 9. Moderation and downvote should be limited to avoid serious phenomena and I do not consider the use of AI at this level.

Having said that, however, I do not agree on combining downvote and censorship: they are two different concepts: no one prohibits publication, nor could they do so, but the gain from publication is limited. Censoring means preventing people from expressing themselves, not preventing them from earning.