Dan Houser vs. The AI Hype Machine: Gaming’s Reality Check
The gaming industry stands at a crossroads. While artificial intelligence promises revolutionary change, the recent viral “leak” of AI-generated GTA 6 footage—which fooled millions before being exposed as fake—has ignited a firestorm of debate. At the center of this conversation stands Rockstar Games co-founder Dan Houser, whose stark warnings about AI paint a very different picture from the glittering promises of tech evangelists. His message? The emperor has no clothes, and the AI revolution might be more about selling stock than creating art.
The “Mad Cow Disease” of the Internet
In candid recent interviews appearing on Sunday Brunch and Virgin Radio UK, Houser didn’t mince words. He offered a grotesque but vivid analogy for the future of generative AI: a “dead internet” scenario where AI models are trained on data generated by other AIs, creating a degrading feedback loop of quality he likened to “mad cow disease.”
“It is sort of like when we fed cows with cows and got mad cow disease,” Houser explained. “The models scour the internet for information, but the internet is going to get more and more full of information made by the models… I can’t see how the information gets better if they’re already running out of data.”
This concept, known to researchers as “model collapse,” suggests that without fresh human creativity, AI will eventually produce nothing but derivative “slop.” Consequently, Houser’s warning feels remarkably prescient as the internet floods with fake gameplay clips and generated content. Moreover, the recent GTA 6 hoax—where an AI-generated video went viral before the creator admitted it was bogus—proves his point.
“Just to Sell AI Stock”
While his former studio prepares to launch Grand Theft Auto VI, Houser believes the industry’s AI obsession is driven more by finance than fun. Furthermore, he argues that tech companies are selling a fantasy to inflate their value rather than delivering working products. The authentic anticipation for GTA 6 has made it a prime target for AI-generated fake leaks.
“The truth is a lot of it’s not as useful as some of the companies would have you believe yet,” Houser stated. He noted that while AI is pitched as a magical solution for everything, it currently cannot perform many complex creative tasks that developers need. “Some of it’s just to sell AI stock, or to convince everyone this is transformative,” he added, cautioning that if the industry isn’t careful, it could move from “somewhere really interesting” to “somewhere that gets overly focused on making money.”
An Industry Divided: Who’s Buying the Hype?
Houser’s skepticism stands in stark contrast to several major publishers who have embraced AI with open arms. Interestingly, the gaming industry’s leadership is sharply divided on the technology’s potential.
The True Believers
Ubisoft’s Yves Guillemot has gone all-in, comparing generative AI to the leap from 2D to 3D gaming—arguably the biggest technological revolution in gaming history. “It’s as monumental a shift for our industry as the transition to 3D,” Guillemot declared. However, Ubisoft’s enthusiasm has already led to embarrassment: the company recently apologized for “unintentionally” including AI-generated loading screens in Anno 117: Pax Romana.
EA’s Andrew Wilson has been equally enthusiastic, describing AI as “a powerful accelerator of creativity, innovation, and player connection.” During EA’s recent earnings call, Wilson proclaimed the company is investing heavily in AI workflows across all teams. Nevertheless, the timing of his AI cheerleading—coming just days after EA laid off 400 employees—drew criticism for poor optics.
The Pragmatic Skeptics
Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Take-Two Interactive, echoes Houser’s concerns with equally colorful language. Additionally, Zelnick called AI “a combination of metadata with a parlor trick,” arguing that AI fundamentally cannot create because it’s backward-looking while creativity is forward-looking. “By definition, a data set is what? Backward-looking. By definition, creativity is what? Forward-looking,” Zelnick explained.
Importantly, Zelnick has also pledged that Take-Two won’t use AI as an excuse to cut staff. “We are not either using this as an excuse to, or frankly seeing the opportunity to, reduce headcount,” he said. Instead, the company views AI as a tool to “release [people] from more mundane tasks so they can do more creative and more interesting tasks.”
Nintendo’s Shuntaro Furukawa has taken perhaps the firmest stance against generative AI. Specifically, he stated the company has no plans to use the technology in its games, citing concerns about intellectual property rights. “While we are open to utilizing technological developments, we will work to continue delivering value that is unique to Nintendo and cannot be created by technology alone,” Furukawa said.
The Optimists with Caveats
Hideo Kojima offers a middle ground, calling AI “a friend” rather than a threat. However, his vision is limited: he wants AI to “handle the tedious tasks” like animation and motion capture, not lead creative decisions. “I would lead the creative part and use AI to boost efficiency,” Kojima clarified. Notably, even Kojima’s pragmatic approach stops far short of the “AI will revolutionize everything” narrative.
Xbox’s Sarah Bond outlined a three-pronged AI strategy focusing on accelerating content creation, discovery, and player assistance. Similarly, Bond’s approach emphasizes AI as a tool for specific functions rather than a wholesale replacement for human creativity.
“Not the Most Humane People”
Beyond the technical limitations, Houser took direct aim at the “tech bros” evangelizing this AI-powered future. He expressed deep skepticism about the motivations of the people defining the next era of technology, suggesting they lack the very humanity they are trying to simulate.
“Some of these people trying to define the future of humanity, creativity… are not the most humane or creative people,” Houser told Virgin Radio. “They’re saying we’re better at being human than you are, andit’ss obviously not true.”
This critique cuts to the heart of the debate. While companies like EA and Ubisoft tout AI’s transformative potential, their track records suggest profit motives rather than creative passion. Indeed, EA’s Wilson was previously hyping NFTs and blockchain gaming when those were trendy among investors. Now, with crypto crashed and AI ascendant, the company has seamlessly pivoted to the new buzzword.
The Music Connection: Keeping It Human
The gaming industry’s relationship with music offers a powerful parallel. Throughout history, games like the Grand Theft Auto series have introduced millions to new artists through carefully curated radio stations. Likewise, titles featuring major musicians—from Fortnite’s Daft Punk collaboration to Dragon Ball DAIMA’s partnership with Zedd—prove that authentic artistic partnerships resonate with audiences.
Dabbling, Not Depending
Houser’s new studio, Absurd Ventures, is “dabbling” with AI but not depending on it.Smilegate invests in Absurd Ventures, led by ex-Rockstar Co
Despite his harsh criticism, Houser is not a Luddite. He confirmed that his new studio, Absurd Ventures, is “dabbling” with AI for its upcoming game set in the A Better Paradise universe. However, his approach is strictly pragmatic: AI handles specific, mundane tasks—boring processes that computers are already doing—rather than replacing human storytelling.
“It’s great at some of the tasks and can’t do the other tasks yet,” he clarified. This measured approach stands in stark contrast to the “AI will do everything” narrative pushing viral hoaxes and investor hype. Furthermore, Houser’s studio represents a middle path: using technology where appropriate while keeping human creativity at the core.
The Creative Wasteland Ahead?
As the gaming community reels from fake leaks and questions what is real, Dan Houser’s voice serves as a grounding force. His message is unequivocal: AI is a tool, not a god. And if the industry continues to “feed cows to cows” by prioritizing generated content over human creativity, the result won’t be a better paradise—it will be a creative wasteland.
The divide between publishers is telling. Companies focused on maximizing shareholder value embrace AI enthusiastically. Meanwhile, those prioritizing creative legacy and player trust—Nintendo, Houser’s new venture, even Kojima—treat it with caution. The question facing gaming isn’t whether AI will change the industry; it’s whether that change will enhance the art form or reduce it to an optimization problem.
As fake leaks go viral and real employees lose jobs, Houser’s mad cow disease analogy feels less like hyperbole and more like prophecy. The internet is already filling with AI slop. The feedback loop has begun. And unless the industry listens to voices like Houser’s, gaming’s golden age of human creativity might be remembered as the last gasp before the machines took over—not to create better games, but to sell more stock.
