PlayStation’s AI Push Raises a Bigger Question: Where Do You Draw the Line?

In a presentation aimed at investors earlier today, PlayStation announced its intention to use AI to “deliver a cutting-edge entertainment experience” for its players.

Unsurprisingly, its comments have already attracted significant blowback from some corners of social media, but it’s important to first reflect on what boss Hideaki Nishino actually said.

AI has become a catch-all term for many different types of technology in 2026, from Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to more lifelike computer controlled opponents, like the kinds you find in Gran Turismo 7’s experimental GT Sophy technology.

It also can refer to generative AI, which is the concept of training a computer on pre-existing images or artwork, and using that data to spit out new “original” pictures based on prompts.

Entertainment Is PlayStation Using Generative AI?

Speaking on the subject, Sony CEO Hiroki Totoki was adamant that “human creativity must remain at the centre” of the company’s work.

He expanded: “AI is a powerful tool, but is not a replacement for artists or creators. It is an amplifier of human imagination and catalyst for new possibilities.”

Indeed, during his PlayStation-specific presentation, Nishino didn’t touch on anything resembling generative AI in the slightest.

He cited examples of where AI technologies can speed up its processes, like a new proprietary tool named Mockingbird which is helping first-party devs like Naughty Dog and San Diego Studio transform performance capture into animations faster.

“We’re not replacing human performers,” he stressed, “but rather optimising how we process the data from these live captures.”

Nishino also talked about various other types of AI, like the aforementioned GT Sophy technology it’s created for Gran Turismo 7, which allows you to race against a more “human-like” opponents.

And he touched upon the updated PSSR2 algorithm introduced this year to the PS5 Pro, which uses machine learning to upscale a lower resolution image into a native 4K one, reducing computational overheads without sacrificing image quality.

Finally, Nishino talked about how various AI models could be used on the PS Store to help recommend more relevant content to consumers, directing them to content which “best reflects their passion”.

Entertainment But Other Devs Are Using Generative AI

PlayStation’s current use of AI is broad, then, but it doesn’t currently appear to entail generative AI.

It’s certainly different to the situation which has been bubbling beneath the surface with gacha game NTE, and crescendoed earlier this week.

After one particularly high profile VTuber quit the game, claiming they were “lied to” over the title’s use of generative AI in some supporting art assets, Chinese dev Hotta Studio promised to “review and rework” the images.

Despite this, it insisted the game has been built using “human creativity” and said all of the “characters, stories, and worlds” were the result of the endeavours of its artists.

A similar situation unfolded with Crimson Desert earlier in the year, involving some assets discovered in the game’s open world. These were promptly replaced by hand-crafted images in a patch.

Entertainment Where Do You Draw the Line?

It’s quite amusing watching companies talk about their AI strategies in 2026.

On one hand, CEOs are eager to juice their stocks and encourage investment by mentioning the buzzword.

On the other, consumers rarely read past the headline and are generally turned off by any mention of the technology – even if it’s not specifically generative AI.

As a website, we’re directly affected by the rise of LLMs, as our content is gobbled up by Google Gemini and Grok, and that’s frustrating.

But we don’t think all AI technology is necessarily bad; the automation Sony’s talking about with technologies like Mockingbird do make sense, and we’re certainly not opposed to its GT Sophy research or its continued improvement of PSSR.

For us, it’s generative AI that crosses a line. In our view, a game is an artistic expression, and it should be crafted by hand. What is the soul or purpose in a product built with prompts?

We suppose there could be exceptions: does a leaf, for example, need to be textured by hand? Couldn’t an artist’s work be reserved for more important assets? But where do you draw the line on what matters and what doesn’t?

It’s a touchy subject and one that’s not going to go away. As the technology improves, there’s no doubt we’re going to see an uptick in generative AI usage, and we’ll be watching with intrigue to see how it affects the artistic intent of the games we play.

Where do you personally draw the line on AI? Would you ever consider skipping a game if it used generative AI, and why? Is there ever an acceptable use for the technology? Let us know where you stand in the comments section below.