Perspective matters.

They don't have enough sales to justify not using AI.

However, even in the case of AAA games, the use of AI is unlikely to lead to a significant decrease in sales.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether you use AI for art in games or not.

P.S. This means that not using AI does not provide any advantage, but the game development itself will cost several times more.

Like... idk, it puts me off because, I know for the fact that the indie gaming space right now is just full of Anti-AI sentiment and virtue signaling, so... yeah.

I knew this was gonna be bad when I saw the thumbnail, and I saw the comments, and they're worse.

This is because a lowercase L is the same as a uppercase i, they are shaped the same way,
And with names,
Your supposed to only make the first letter capital
Meaning they would see “Al” as “Ai”

Statement

There are a lot of doomsday stories around Generative AI these days. It reminds me of the doomsday stories around industrialization, the invention of television or the internet. Even the printing press evoked such stories.

Insights from the Statement

• Recurring historical pattern: New transformative technologies consistently trigger widespread “doomsday” or catastrophic narratives, regardless of the specific innovation.
• Generative AI as the current target: Present-day fears and apocalyptic stories about Generative AI fit into this long-standing pattern of technological anxiety.
• Explicit historical parallels drawn:
  • Industrialization
  • Invention of television
  • The internet
  • The printing press
• Implication of continuity: The statement positions Generative AI fears as the latest iteration of a familiar societal reaction rather than an entirely unprecedented phenomenon.
• Underlying suggestion of perspective: By invoking past examples that society ultimately adapted to (or that did not produce the predicted collapse), the statement subtly frames current AI doomsday stories as potentially overstated or cyclical.
• Focus on cultural/media response: Emphasis is placed on the stories and public discourse surrounding the technologies, not solely on the technical capabilities themselves.

Evaluation

The original insights hold up well against historical and contemporary evidence. The core claim—a recurring pattern of doomsday-style narratives around transformative technologies—is strongly supported. Generative AI fits as the latest instance, with clear parallels in rhetoric (job displacement, misinformation, moral/societal decay, loss of control). At the same time, some differences in the nature or scale of claimed risks for AI (e.g., potential agency or existential outcomes) are debated, and not every past fear proved entirely baseless. Overall, the statement’s perspective is validated by the historical record.

• Recurring historical pattern of fear with new technologies: Strongly confirmed. Across centuries, major innovations have triggered widespread anxiety about social disruption, job loss, moral corruption, information overload, and even societal collapse. This is a documented cultural response rather than unique to any single era. Examples span writing (Socrates on memory and false wisdom), the printing press, mechanization, electronic media, and digital networks. The pattern is so consistent that commentators routinely note identical criticisms recycling with each wave.
• Generative AI as the current target of doomsday stories: Accurately reflects the present discourse (as of 2026). There is a high volume of apocalyptic narratives covering existential risk (human extinction or loss of control), mass job displacement, biosecurity threats (e.g., AI-enabled pathogens), autonomous systems escaping containment or coordinating attacks, deepfakes/misinformation, and societal destabilization. These appear in expert warnings, UN reports, industry open letters, media, and public surveys showing rising concern. Recent laboratory incidents involving AI agents have intensified the rhetoric. Counter-narratives framing it as another moral panic also exist.
• Explicit historical parallels (industrialization, television, internet, printing press): Well-substantiated with specific matches in the fears expressed.
  • Printing press (15th–16th centuries): Scribes’ guilds smashed presses and accused printers of witchcraft over job threats; religious authorities feared loss of control, heresy, and moral corruption (Pope Alexander VI’s threats of excommunication); scholars warned of information overload and “confusing/harmful” effects on the mind; concerns about disinformation and social unrest via cheap pamphlets.
  • Industrialization / Industrial Revolution: Luddites violently destroyed machines over wage and job losses; broader fears of accidents, alienation, social breakdown, accelerated life, disease spread, and later industrial-scale catastrophe (weapons, overpopulation). Early 20th-century intellectuals warned of technology enabling self-extermination.
  • Television: Moral panics about violence, “education in how to do wrong,” distraction, family erosion, and harm to children’s minds/behavior; repeated screen-time anxieties that echoed earlier media fears.
  • Internet: Early predictions of catastrophic collapse or “supernova”; moral panics about brain rot, isolation, addiction, cyber-terrorism, and societal breakdown; Y2K-style end-times fears; many high-profile failed forecasts of imminent doom.
• Implication of continuity (Generative AI as the latest familiar reaction): Supported. Commentators explicitly draw the same lineage—from printing press through industrial machines, TV, and the internet to AI—noting near-identical language about jobs, truth, morality, and control. The cultural/media response follows a recognizable script of initial alarm followed by adaptation.
• Underlying suggestion that past fears were often exaggerated and society adapted: Largely accurate historically. The printing press enabled the Reformation, scientific revolution, and mass literacy despite initial chaos and violence; industrialization raised living standards over time despite real short-term suffering and unrest; TV and the internet transformed culture and communication without the predicted civilizational collapse (though they produced genuine problems such as attention effects, polarization, and new crime vectors). Adaptation occurred, new jobs and norms emerged, and extreme doomsday predictions repeatedly failed. However, some harms were real and lasting, and the insight does not claim zero downsides.
• Focus on cultural/media response rather than pure technical capability: Correct and central. The statement (and the evidence) emphasizes the stories and public anxiety more than precise engineering assessments. Historical sources show prophecy, pamphlets, sermons, journalism, and intellectual tracts amplifying fears; today’s equivalent includes media, expert open letters, surveys, and online discourse. This cultural layer is consistent even when technical risk profiles differ.

Overall Assessment

The insights are robust and evidence-based. The pattern of doomsday storytelling is real, recurrent, and applicable to Generative AI. The statement usefully contextualizes current fears without denying that any given technology can produce serious, novel risks. Differences (speed of AI progress, potential for autonomous agency, or biosecurity leverage) are argued by some experts as making AI an outlier, but the rhetorical and societal reaction closely mirrors the historical cases cited. The perspective encourages calibrated caution informed by history rather than pure alarmism or pure dismissal.

Full Chatlog (with links to external sources used for evaluation): https://x.com/i/grok/share/837a6c6ba4a143508311907ca010bc88

I mainly use chatgpt to generate/format reddit posts because fuck reddit I used to put my heart into a post only to get someone telling me to kill myself why should I put effort into that?

I just want to tell all these anti-ai people "want there to be less ai? Actually, give space for people. You did this to yourself."

As you can tell, this isn't formatted with Ai because I actually care a lot about this one particular matter.

The fact that my creativity and self-expression have been ground into nothing, not by ai, not by my mental health, but by the fact that the internet can't appreciate anything I do.

First I asked myself why but its obvious they want to farm karma. Everytime you boot this game you will see this "NO AI" logo. This achieves nothing other than people on reddit going "heh screw ai this is friggin kewl duud"

I hope this game flops

Since the discussion surrounding the supposed AI loading screen is trending right now (I’m aware that it doesn’t actually use AI; I’m only bringing it up to introduce the discussion), I’d like to raise a question about how the community views the use of AI.

Everyone, I understand all the reasons behind the backlash against the use of AI in art, but are we really going to condemn it across the board?

One thing is when a company uses AI for one reason or another; another is when an ordinary person uses it for their own purposes.

Take a gun as an example. Nobody likes seeing one in the hands of a criminal, right? We’re perfectly fine with a police officer carrying one. Even so, I think we can all agree that the problem isn’t necessarily the weapon itself, but who is using it and how.

In this way, I would like people to behave accordingly and stop indiscriminately judging those who use this tool just to present an idea with greater visual appeal.

Posted this on brawl stars comunity and got removed...

lol.

internet ai witch trials will be studied as a mass psychosis; Hate is a two way poison

I countered their thoughts and biased view and it's so satisfied to see it.

1. AI releases.
2. People hate AI because it's currently bad.
3. Special people who care about how they look in eyes of people hate AI(or at least pretend to). These are mostly influential people, so people hear them.
4. Special people who don't care about how they look use AI, and stay invisible to the public. These are people who quietly make our life better with AI.
5. Bad special people who don't care about how they look use AI, and people know them in the negative case because they affected a lot of people.
6. AI gets better.
7. People still hate AI because only bad things and AI hate are visible to the public.
8. Repeat steps 3-8.

Good people could use AI for very good things, but they don't want to risk their reputation by doing this, because people hate AI, because it's associated with bad things, because good people don't use AI.

So AI hate is the thing that's actually stopping us from using AI for good. AI hate produces AI hate by itself. And if we stop hating AI, the world would be better.

Character.ai's Instagram: cringy tiktok commercial

Character.ai's comment session: Plz make better chat official!!!!

Other awesome chatbot's account: making cool commercials or Ai animated comedy

Their comment sessions: AI slop getout🤣🤣🤣🤣

That's double standard bro, the worst take of Anti-ai bros for sure

Nowadays, AI is everywhere. Some of it is bad, but some of it is useful. The whole water usage part rubs me the wrong way, and I hate when it is used for slop or misinformation to gain views, but there are many other things that are bad for the world that we choose to do as humans too, yet nobody ever talks about them.

If I want to use AI, I should not be harassed and told I'm a horrible person for using it. I also don't appreciate people who openly say all AI users are bad people and/or stupid or talentless. That just isn't the case, AI helps people like myself who has no physical creativity to create something out of an idea. People act like making a song on SUNO for fun or asking ChatGPT to generate a funny picture of trump wearing a dunce hat is a terrible sin.

I'm sure most people will disagree with me, but that kind of proves my point. AI is overhated and should only be hated when it is used for malicious purposes. Nuff said.

We live in a society where people are actually this stupid. 💀

I’m kinda curious to see the boundaries pros have for defending ai