Games Workshop bans staff from using AI

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Perceived Quality and Creative Process

  • Many argue AI-generated art looks generic, “sloppy,” and emotionally flat, especially in 2D graphics and commercial design.
  • Others counter that with careful prompting, model blending, and post-processing, AI outputs can be less obvious and useful as references.
  • Some see AI as a viable starting point in an iterative process; critics respond that deadlines and cost pressures mean the “starting point” often becomes the final product.
  • There’s disagreement on how limiting models really are: some say they only remix training data “noise”; others argue generalization and style transfer can produce genuinely new combinations.

AI as Tool vs. Ban Rationale

  • Supporters of the ban say if you pay skilled artists, you want original work, not something anyone can approximate with consumer tools.
  • Several see the policy as a way to avoid quality erosion and “spec music”-style homogenization of visual style.
  • A few question whether a blanket ban is necessary if truly original work is “not that much harder” than redrawing AI output.

Legal and IP Concerns

  • Many note GW’s business is built on tightly controlled IP; AI outputs:
    • May be trained on infringing data.
    • Are currently of unclear or limited copyright status.
  • Using non-copyrightable AI art for a company whose core asset is proprietary lore and visuals is seen as strategically dangerous.
  • Indemnification clauses from AI vendors are viewed skeptically: they only matter if the vendor survives major litigation.

Lore, Branding, and Community Expectations

  • Commenters highlight that Warhammer’s universe is explicitly anti-“Abominable Intelligences,” so the ban is seen as “lore accurate.”
  • The tabletop audience is described as strongly anti-AI for art and narrative content, both on ethical and quality grounds.
  • Several see this as GW avoiding a multi-year PR headache and signalling commitment to artisanal, premium products in a niche where they face little direct IP competition.

Broader AI Attitudes and Double Standards

  • Multiple comments note a common pattern: people oppose AI for art but welcome it for coding or web development, often because:
    • They see programming as less “creative.”
    • They sympathize more with struggling artists than relatively well-paid engineers.
  • Others argue this inconsistency mostly reflects perceived output quality and personal value: AI is acceptable for low-value or “invisible” work, not for core creative artifacts.
  • There’s debate over whether anti-AI sentiment will fade once AI-enhanced products reach higher quality, versus a persistent moral and IP-based resistance.