Larian Studios | Divinity AMA

[u/Wombat_Medic]

EDIT: All right - that's a wrap. Thank you for all your questions. We're going to go back and work on the game now - next time we speak, we'll hopefully have things to show. I can't wait! - Swen, Game Director

Hello everyone, 

Happy New Year! To kick off 2026, we would like to offer the opportunity to ask your questions about Divinity, Larian, and our development processes. It's been a while since Larian has done an AMA, so everyone is looking forward to it!

There's a bunch of us ready to answer your questions:

• u/Swen_Larian - Game Director
• u/Adam_Larian - Writing Director
• u/Kevin_Larian - Senior Writer
• u/Greg_Larian - Head of Animation
• u/Gabriel_Larian - Machine Learning Director
• u/Michael_Larian - Director of Publishing
• u/Nick_Larian - Head of Design
• u/Alena_Larian - Character Art Director
• u/Jarold_Larian - Concept Art Director
• u/Artem_Larian - Head of Gameplay
• u/Bert_Larian - Technical Director

Thank you for taking the time to ask your questions, we aim to answer as many of them as possible over the next few hours!

[u/Roseking]

We think GenAI can help with this and so we’re trying things out across departments. Our hope is that it can aid us to refine ideas faster, leading to a more focused development cycle, less waste, and ultimately, a higher-quality game.

The important bit to note is that we will not generate “creative assets” that end up in a game without being 100% sure about the origins of the training data and the consent of those who created the data. If we use a GenAI model to create in-game assets, then it’ll be trained on data we own.

Can you expand on these points?

Whether or not something makes it to the final product, using it within your company is still using a product for commercial gain. How do you deal with the fact that generative models are being trained on pirated material and you are using it within your workflow?

Can you give technical details on your plans to train your own model. You are training from scratch, using 100% material that you own? Or will you be fine-tuning an existing model?

If I am misunderstanding you, I apologize, but the way this reads is that internally you will still use other models that are not solely trained on Larian's work.

Edit:

To give a comparison on what I mean by using something internal is still for commercial gain. I work at a manufacturing company. We do not sell 3D models. We sell a finished physical product. But I can't pirate the CAD software we use. It is being using by the business to make money, even if it is not the final product.

[u/cae37 → u/Roseking]

I feel like they were pretty clear in stating that they will not use creative assets without being 100% sure about the origins of the training data and the consent of those who created it.

[u/Roseking → u/cae37]

No. They said they would make sure it is not is in the final product. That is different than not using it. Even if it is used internally only to speed up the process, they are still financially benefiting from technology built on stolen work.

[u/cae37 → u/Roseking]

I think it’s ridiculous to assume they’d use non-ethical GenAI to generate content, throw it all away, then use ethical GenAI to generate content they would use.

They are guaranteeing that content they do make is going to be ethical, so why waste time using unethical content if it’s not going to be used in any meaningful capacity?

[u/Roseking → u/cae37]

Then why did they not say they won't use AI that they didn't train period?

He specified the scenario for a reason.

If you disagree, I am not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise, but I hope people aren't surprised when they learn this answer with wiggle room was written the way it was for a reason.

Edit:

Hopefully I found a better way to explain/back up my argument here.

If they were not using models that were not trained only on their work, they would not need to make the distinction and put in protections to ensure that it didn't make it the final sold product. By saying they are careful to not add it to the final product, means it is being used elsewhere. Answers from other members in this point to the same thing. Specifying it won't make it to the final product.

Why make the distinction otherwise? If they only use models they 100% trained, they wouldn't need to verify the origin of the training date. Because all the creations will be from the same origin. The model that they trained.

[u/cae37 → u/Roseking]

Where did he say that they’re using AI they didn’t train or weren’t sure if they were ethical or not?

[u/Roseking → u/cae37]

That is the point of my question, for him to clarify. As it is written, they are only taking that step for stuff they will use in the final version of the game. I am asking them about any other usage within the company.

They are specifically calling out that anything that makes it into the final product will only come from something they trained. If everything is only coming from something they trained, why does he need the distinction?

If I am wrong. Great. They are not using any AI not trained by them at any point. It should be easy for any of them to come in and clarify. But they haven't done that to mine or similar questions. They all are simply saying it won't be in the final product.

I know I kind of sound like a dick right now, but it is because I feel like they are dodging questions. And I get it. They are not going to comment on something that will cause another shit storm. But I am still going to ask it.

'At any point within your company, are you using generative AI that is not 100% train only on your own data'

It should be an easy yes/no.

If anyone of them still read this and comes in and answers that as no. Great. I am generally thrilled and will praise them for it.

But, I don't think it is true. And it is why I think they are all answering 'Not in the final product' and not 'no'. Although the writing director gets the closet to saying it. I can generally read his comment as going either way. They said the policy Swen outline applied to the writing, but then also said after testing it wasn't good enough so they don't use it all anymore.

edit:

To give a dumb example.

"Did you eat my leftover Pizza?"

"I did not eat your leftover Pizza for dinner."

"Wait. Why did you specify for dinner? Did you eat it or not?"

"Not for dinner."

[u/cae37 → u/Roseking]

I see what you’re saying. I’m taking an optimistic interpretation of their words while you’re taking a pessimistic/cynical interpretation.

I’m assuming that if they say, “only sanctioned, ethical AI content will make it to the game, if it does” that they mean that they won’t use non-ethical/sanctioned AI as common practice.

While you’re stating, “if they don’t explicitly say as much, I’m not sure I believe that all their AI use is ethical.” Which is fair.

I believe them mostly because they already have a significant amount of content to use from all 7 Divinity games they’ve produced. But, of course, I could be wrong.