To the readers of GameCritics.com, this statement is in regards to our official position on generative AI, both in the use of writing reviews and in the games that we will choose to review in the future.

Regarding reviews, it is our official position that no person who writes for GameCritics will use generative AI in the creation of a review. Use of AI is not acceptable to generate bullet points, nor is it acceptable to use as a “starting point” to be embellished by a human writer. Use of GenAI is not acceptable at all, in any circumstance. Readers of this site have my promise as editor that we will never knowingly approve or run a review that has been created with generative AI.

In regards to the games that we choose to review, GameCritics.com will not review any game that uses generative AI in any way, at any point in the process. This includes using GenAI for graphics, music, writing, or any other aspect that goes into the creation of a videogame.

Using generative AI takes jobs away from the skilled artisans who have put time and effort into mastering their craft, without which generative AI wouldn’t exist. As there is currently no way to attribute which sources go into generative AI and no pay structure compensating the artists whose work has been used without permission, we will not accept any games which use AI in any capacity whatsoever.

If there is ever a time when a game we’ve covered or a review we’ve published is later revealed to have used generative AI in any way, that coverage will be removed immediately.

GameCritics.com is a place that celebrates games – and more importantly, we celebrate the creativity and inspiration that goes into each and every game made by real people. We believe the best way to show this appreciation and respect is to support the people themselves, not the technology which takes advantage of them.

Brad Gallaway
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

8 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Thom Stone
9 months ago

PREACH

Ben S.
Ben S.
9 months ago

One of many reasons why I’m proud to contribute to this site. Well said, Brad!

hdefined
hdefined
9 months ago

Let me just say that on the face of it, I agree with and support what it is you are taking a stand against. To get more pedantic, then, “GameCritics.com will not review any game that uses generative AI in any way, at any point in the process” Is there a meaningful difference between “generative AI” and procedurally generated maps, for example? Or a name or character randomizer? I’m not saying there isn’t; I’m genuinely broaching the question. I like to create my own music, and while I haven’t used it personally, there is a plug-in that takes a drum… Read more »

hdefined
hdefined
8 months ago
Reply to  Brad Gallaway

Like . . . I agree, and I’m really not trying to play devil’s advocate. I just feel like the act of articulating where to draw the line is an incredibly tricky process, and what we discover over time by trying to articulate that line may give us cause to reconsider where we draw it. I’m not saying there will come a time when AI art (as it currently exists) will be acceptable (well, there might, but that is not something I’m advocating for). I just think right now, our disgust for the types of automation we consider to be… Read more »

hdefined
hdefined
8 months ago
Reply to  Brad Gallaway

Sure enough, and I appreciate that this article exists. It’s a fascinating topic, anyway.

Jbumi
Jbumi
9 months ago

🕴🏽I give you a standing ovation for these decisions! 👏🏼