Okay, so I was reading this whole Reddit thread about the Larian CEO’s comments on using AI in game development, you know, where he compared the backlash to people smashing steam engines. And wow, the discussion is all over the place, but it really crystallizes the entire AI debate right now.
There’s this huge, popular sentiment that feels like a core frustration: the promise of AI was supposed to be about automating the boring, mundane stuff so we could *actually* focus on creative work—painting, writing, creating. Not the other way around, where creativity gets automated and we’re stuck with the drudgery. People are calling it the opposite of an art renaissance; instead of a flourishing of human art, we risk coming home to consume automated, generic slop. There’s a real fear that this is what the powers that be want: maximum output for minimum cost and risk, which means sidelining humans.
But then, a massive chunk of the discussion pushes back on the panic, especially around Larian’s specific case. The most upvoted comments are from people clarifying that, according to the CEO, they’re not implementing AI *into* the game. Their concept artists use generative AI like a high-tech mood board or an art book—just to quickly explore ideas and get a general vibe before the actual human artists do the real work. A lot of folks see this as a classic internet overreaction to a field outsiders don’t understand. For them, this is the proper way to use AI: as a tool to optimize workflow, handle repetitive reference-finding, or pre-visualize concepts, freeing up time for the nuanced, skilled human work. Several developers chimed in saying this is exactly how they use it—to speed up rote tasks, not to replace their jobs, and that any code or content it generates still needs heavy review and correction by a skilled human.
However, even among those who accept this “tool” argument, there’s deep skepticism and anxiety about the slippery slope. Many, especially artists and developers in the field, argue that while it might be “just a tool” for brainstorming *now*, it’s inevitable that it will start replacing entry-level and then mid-level jobs. Concept artists, they fear, will eventually be shoved aside. And that’s a huge problem because you can’t have experts—the “cream”—if you eliminate all the entry-level positions where people learn and become seniors. No starter, no sourdough, as one person put it. There’s a worry that we’ll lose the entire pipeline of skill development.
The economic and societal fears run even deeper. People are angry that the responsibility for regulating AI use is falling on consumers through boycotts, rather than on companies through laws. They point out the potential for mass unemployment, the insane environmental cost of running these models (which is already driving up utility and component prices), and the fact that the technology is largely built on a foundation of stolen art, trained on artists’ work without consent or compensation. For many, that alone makes any use of it, even internal brainstorming, ethically tainted.
And then there’s the layer of pure cynicism about corporate motives and gamer hypocrisy. A lot of comments call out the double standard: if a disliked company like EA or Ubisoft did this, there’d be outrage, but because it’s beloved Larian, people bend over backwards to justify it. The real goal, as many see it, isn’t enhancement—it’s replacement. AI doesn’t form unions or take bathroom breaks, so of course every business wants it. The fear is that short-sighted executives, obsessed with quarterly profits, will replace humans until the quality craters and the economy is wrecked because no one can afford the products anymore.
Some bring up the Luddite comparison the CEO made, but they flip it, saying it’s actually accurate: the original Luddites weren’t against technology itself, but against how it was used to destroy livelihoods and degrade their lives. That’s exactly what many see happening here—a push to separate capital from human labor, potentially leading to a neo-feudal future.
So you’ve got this three-way tension: one group seeing reasonable tool use, another seeing the thin end of a devastating wedge, and a third just exhausted by the lack of nuance in the whole debate. And hovering over it all is this bitter joke about being an artist today: damned if you use AI and get shunned, damned if you don’t and get replaced. The whole thread feels like a microcosm of the paralysis—seeing a potentially useful tool being pushed in the worst possible way, for the worst possible reasons, with seemingly no way to stop the slide.
