The Inevitability and Ambiguity of AI: A Tooling Perspective

“AI is inevitable.”

This phrase has lodged itself in the recesses of my mind for the past month, percolating during meetings, emails, and various online discussions across Bluesky, LinkedIn, and Discord. Yet, is it a thought worth contemplating, or just an echo of hype and fear? It’s a phrase that evokes skepticism on both sides—whether from fervent supporters or doomsayers. As the philosopher Natasha Bedingfield reminded us in 2004, “Today is where the book begins; the rest is still unwritten.” In essence, nothing—good or bad—is truly inevitable.

Yet, amidst the discussions about AI’s potential and concerns, a different phrase often emerges: “AI is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil, like any other tool.”

This notion resonates in a world that has always engaged in the wrestle of tools and ethics, where we debate the merits of Unity versus Unreal, or procedural content versus hand-crafted artistry. Tool development is so critical that the Game Developers Conference even hosts a dedicated Tools Summit, highlighting how our community often seeks to assess technology without falling victim to its bombast.

Assessing AI as a Tool: A Neutral Lens?

Viewing generative AI through a neutral tool lens might seem admirable; it offers a way to sift through the noise and evaluate technology based on its merits. According to the 2025 GDC State of the Industry report, many developers are exploring AI not out of blind faith in hype, but as a practical quest to find the right tool for their needs.

However, calling generative AI “just a tool” is fraught with issues. This framing lacks nuance, echoing a cynicism often found in debates on firearm regulations. Just as the phrase “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” has become shorthand to downplay the harmful implications of firearms, similarly, claiming AI is merely a tool can obscure its profound societal impact.

The Shape of Tools and Their Uses

Let’s dissect the concept of tools further through a lens of form and function. Take two common household items: the claw hammer and the handgun. While hammers are typically associated with construction, their design dictates various functionalities. The hammer’s shape allows it to transfer kinetic energy efficiently, making it ideal for driving nails or screws.

Conversely, a handgun is constructed with a singular purpose: to discharge bullets quickly. While one might argue that firearms can be used for benign purposes like starting repairs, their design makes them inherently optimal for inflicting harm.

Both the hammer and the firearm exhibit one key principle: they are not “just tools.” Each is optimized for a specific set of tasks, whether it’s building a house or lethally responding to a threat.

Generative AI: An Optimized Tool for Deception

As we pivot to an evaluation of generative AI, its potential to deceive stands out perhaps more than any other quality. Proponents hail it as a tool for increased efficiency, yet efficiency is nebulous and difficult to quantify. The stark truth is that generative AI can be exploited to manipulate reality—students use it to cheat on assignments, voice technologies facilitate scams, and even government studies can become disinformation via AI-generated citations.

Moreover, AI has entered the realm of entertainment, where it can fabricate fake movie trailers or generate dubious marketing for non-existent games. The realities of deception are palpably connected to its potential for efficiency, as evidenced by its misuse across sectors—engendering significant ethical dilemmas.

The Art of Deception in Games and Reality

Herein lies an interesting paradox. While games often rely on deception to create immersive experiences—what we call the “magic circle”—there’s a critical distinction between deceiving in fictional contexts and manipulating in real-life scenarios. In games, deception constructs shared realities, whereas in real life, it threatens to erode trust and manipulate understanding.

Take, for instance, the Star Wars series’ character Mon Mothma, who warns against losing objective reality: "The loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous." This sentiment resonates with the concerns emerging around AI. When truth is obscured, society becomes ripe for exploitation by those wielding the loudest voices, echoing the trepidations surrounding AI as merely a tool.

Thus, while generative AI can indeed enhance user experience and creativity, it bears an undeniable risk of distorting the fabric of truth—much like firearms that silence rather than secure.

In summary, the conversations surrounding AI necessitate we examine not only its functionality but also its societal implications. As we navigate this complex landscape, the framing of AI is crucial, ensuring we strike a balance between embracing new tools and interrogating their potential consequences.