AI opponents have already lost - they just don't know it yet
-
- Recommended
-
Daniel -
December 23, 2025 at 6:28 PM -
185 Views -
0 Comments
Recently, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, an indie game was banned from a major platform - not because of poor quality, but because the developer had used AI tools for assets. Since then, dev communities have been discussing whether this is legitimate.
The answer is simple: no. And history shows why this resistance is futile.
What we are experiencing here is not a new ethical dilemma. It is the same pattern that always accompanies every leapfrog technology.
History repeats itself. Always.
When the railway was introduced, doctors warned that speeds over 30 km/h would confuse the human mind. When the smartphone arrived, it was said: "Nobody needs mobile internet. It destroys social interaction."
Today, life without a smartphone is virtually impossible. Even in our industry, software development, it was never any different:
- IDEs were considered "cheating".
- Autocomplete was for the lazy.
- Frameworks were a sign of a lack of expertise.
No one would seriously demand to build complex systems with Notepad today. New tools are almost never objectively rejected. They are fought morally.
Games & Software: AI is not a cheat, but a lever
The accusation is often made that AI makes development superficial and interchangeable. The opposite is true. AI is not a replacement for developers - it is a multiplier.
It enables faster prototyping, radical refactoring and eliminates blind spots. A team of five developers using AI as an "exoskeleton" can now deliver output and quality that previously required twenty. They invest their energy in architecture and user experience instead of boilerplate code.
Those who deliberately do not use AI today are not opting for "craftsmanship". They are opting for slowness.
A look at music: DAWs were the enemy
The debate is strikingly reminiscent of the introduction of digital audio workstations (DAWs). Producers who made music on a PC were ridiculed: "They're not real instruments. The computer has no soul."
Today, there is hardly a professional musician - from Hans Zimmer to bedroom producers - who works without a DAW. Technology has not killed music, it has lowered the barriers. If you don't have talent, you'll only produce standardised mash, even with AI. Those with talent are unleashed by it.
It's not about morality. It's about market position.
Why is the rejection so emotional? The fear is rarely directed at the tool itself. It comes from those who have the most to lose.
- Developers whose status is based on memorised syntax knowledge.
- Agencies that sell expensive man-hours for tasks that are now completed in seconds.
- Gatekeepers whose expertise is suddenly democratised.
AI does not devalue experience, but it does devalue inefficiency. This threatens hierarchies. That's why morality is used as an excuse ("real art", "real devs") to protect vested interests.
Conclusion
KI is not a trend or hype. It is infrastructure. Studios and developers who oppose it on principle today will not suddenly be proved right. They will simply become irrelevant.
History is surprisingly clear on this issue. So the question is not whether you use AI. The question is only how long you can afford not to.
Source:
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
