Nobody really cares if you used AI but in the end the mod is good and you are capable of supporting it, for a good example look at Aqueducts and sluices and True achimedes screw mods. But using it to the point of even having it write the description makes it extremely difficult to have any trust in your skills and the quality of the mod. I respect that you don't try to hide it, but don't be surprised that people don't trust your modding skills. Also, saying "so its more of a question of, would one rather not have it at all or be faced with these rather uncomfortable realities" is crazy talk and does nothing but sink your reputation as a modder

Even saying all that, the mod still looks promising god damn it, but I'm personally not going to use the mods made by someone who tells people "My mods will be made with AI, take it or leave it"

ok yea true xD but in terms of descriptions, i always write too much, i often write the description and then give it to the AI and tell it like hey can you make thsi into bullet points and stuff. True on that last qoute, i should work on my wording a bid there. 

To add to what GOODYOB said, I think the key question is "can the human who put this mod up really plan on supporting it?" The initial idea for the mod is one chunk of work, but then to deal with bugs, compatibility, version changes of VS, and all of that is the longer effort. Some AI mods come across as "I had a neat idea and asked a LLM to vibe-code it, here's the result!" But fixing and updating is another skill entirely, so is getting a LLM to fix problems or updates without creating even more problems, turning into spaghetti code, etc. For professional work that's why an AI is often supervised by a senior human engineer whose job it is to manage and check the work, and dive in themselves in the LLM really gets stuck (or decide to start over from scratch, which is only possible if a lot of other compatibility/integration with other systems hasn't been done).

It seems like on this moddb there are three main approaches to using AI:
1. "I just used it for a couple things, to clean-up or deal with some stuff I didn't know. The human (me) is the main coder and I'm responsible, don't worry about it." (Alternate version: "I only used AI for an image that looked more fun / complicated.")

2. "I am a beginning coder and using an LLM to understand how vintage story works and to structure my work. I am trying to learn all of this myself so I can eventually take over as the main "developer" and just have the AI to help me out." (Kind of "graduates" to #1 eventually.)

3. "I made this mod, or a bunch of mods, very quickly to try out a cool idea! If you have suggestions I'll feed them back into the LLM and keep going!"

In my opinion #3 is the most unstable. Unless someone is good at managing a LLM across versions, it can break down. If you don't have to put much time / effort / learning into it, then it's easy to get bored and drop it, move on to the next mod idea, etc. Of course that exists with human mod authors too -- mods are abandoned after years, or prolific coders like Salty move on to the next mod and the next one. But with Salty mods, other modders often pick up the idea and build on it (look at "One Hand" and then "Onus Moderatus" and "Unburdened") and with mods that are abandoned, another human can come along and fork it, take over the code, if it's open source they can look at the whole thing and understand it or even talk to the original coder. It's harder for a human coder to take over an overgrown pile of LLM code. And I guess you could have "a LLM will take over and fork an abandoned LLM mod" (I haven't seen this happen yet) but so far it seems like many LLM mods are taking an idea that might have been done earlier by a human, but make a totally new "from scratch" version instead of carrying on an older mod. It's just easier for a LLM to work that way, but it's hard to trust it.