MeatMan

henry/bi/asian/18+ - vid essay guy (MeatMan Media on YT)
icon: @/tynkrst
spam: @meatspam__
server:

[MeatMan @MeatMan__]

was my fate set in stone,
or just one thread in the great wide unknown?🎶
#frieren

[Sethy (Digger Pilled) @Brizksie]

"Didn’t capture the zeitgeist”

[lucas @boboomf]

The dcu 9/11 is 11/9

[Everything_DCU @EverythingDCU_]

Kyle Chandler and Aaron Pierre at today’s Lanterns event!

[jx @Waytooosweet]

At least I enjoyed it

[⋆˚࿔ 𝕐𝕦𝕣𝕚 ♪˚⋆ @treatmachanwell]

Never venting again I've got no idea who the Chicago bears are I'm Australian 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

[Cinema Solace @SolaceCinema]

James Gunn has liked a comment on his Instagram post after being let go from DC Studios.

“Oh we’re never seeing Peacemaker again 😭”

[ClarkQuill97 @CQuill97]

Man fuck your grandma

[MER∆KI - Wild Horse Nine Era @MerakiDelta]

> is named Gunn
> gets fired

Bravo Hideo Kojima

[MeatMan @MeatMan__]

Skydance said superman had no cultural impact cuz they got tired of ppl joking about it being a diss on israel 💀

Buddy sky dance was formed because David Ellison cant act

[MeatMan @MeatMan__]

Lanterns not getting another season

😞

[MeatMan @MeatMan__]

In tears man you can't make this shit up

[DiscussingFilm @DiscussingFilm]

One of the reasons Skydance replaced James Gunn and Peter Safran as the heads of DC Studios had to do with box office.

• ‘Supergirl’ was a massive bomb this year.

• ‘Superman’s $618M box office was not impressive to Skydance either, as the film lacked “pop culture impact” in their eyes.

(Source: https://t.co/IA1b9D4HPa)

[phia @kirikhia]

Jeremy Latcham says his first official form of action as the new head of DC Studios will be renaming the character “Nightwing” to “Rightwing”

“It’s what Charlie would have wanted”

(Source: Deadline)

[Makeoververse @makeoververse]

thoughts on CEOS (2026)?

[LukeCB14 @LukeCB14]

🚨BREAKING🚨

Zohran Mamdani has obtained "The Other Half" with eager edge.

New Yorkers have reported seeing him shatter skating around the city.

[ape attack survivor @pissvortex]

Did you just do a hecking anti-white racism???? Y-you HAVE to delete it!! This is literally violence!

[my⁷⁺⁹ @almxndmilktae]

Just voted blue 115 times in Georgia
#StartTheSteal

[MeatMan @MeatMan__]

How the Dinosaurs must've felt before the final days

[Kotaro Uchikoshi Eng @Uchikoshi_Eng]

To everyone who has concerns about the use of AI

This morning, in the hallway of the apartment building where I have my office, I ran into a little old lady from the neighborhood. She's a really friendly lady, past 90 but still sharp as a tack and a lot of fun to talk to.
She told me about her grandkids and filled me in on a bit of gossip (apparently the mistress who'd been living with the man next door had recently moved out). Then she gave me a kind smile, pressed a little piece of candy into my hand, and went on her way.
It warmed my heart. How should I put it...? I know it sounds cheesy, but it made me realize how wonderful human beings can be. Because that's something today's AI could never pull off.

Even so, I'm genuinely sorry, but I still believe there's a place for AI in game development. It truly breaks my heart to have let you all down... But no matter what, I just can't bring myself to lie to you.

But please, don't get me wrong. I'm not here to argue with you, and I really do respect your opinions. This may be hard to believe, but I'm on your side. I hope you'll understand that the reason I've taken up AI as a weapon is to protect you.

I understand if you don't like me anymore. You can unfollow me, and you can stop buying my games.
Either way, I'll never forget all the support you've given me over the years, and I'll always be grateful for it. My love for you all will last forever...

In the past, I spoke out in support of LGBTQ+ people. Back then, a lot of people told me, "If you're going to support them, I'm never buying another one of your games!"
But I still stand by that belief today, and this time is no different. You know the line: "This above all: to thine own self be true."

* * *

I think you may have the wrong idea about me. "Yeehaw! AI is awesome! I'm gonna pump out games like crazy with AI!" That's not how I feel at all...
To be honest, I don't even want to use AI. Actually, it'd be more accurate to say I don't want to use computers, electricity, cars, or vibrating dildos either. If I could, I'd retire right now, hole up deep in the mountains far from civilization, and live off the land growing potatoes and mandrakes.

Did you know? A long, long time ago, Japan had what's called the "Jomon period." People lived as hunter-gatherers, and believe it or not, they're said to have lived in peace for over 10,000 years straight! I seriously wish I could leap back in time to that era...

But realistically, of course, that's impossible.
Once we humans get our hands on a convenient tool, a new technology, we can never let it go.
Pandora's box has already been opened. If that's the case, shouldn't we focus on finding ways to use it safely and responsibly?

Even if I don't use AI, someone else will, and in fact, countless people already do. It's being used not just in game development, but also in film and video production and in developing all kinds of industrial products.
Does that mean it's okay to use AI in other fields, but maybe not in game development...?
Or could it be that Uchi is the only one who shouldn't use it...? It feels like being told, "When crossing the scorching desert, everyone else can take a car, but you have to go on foot."

Unfortunately, as things stand, those who are open about their use of AI may end up at a disadvantage compared to those who keep it hidden.
But I want to always be honest with you, and with myself. Let's say my next game gets announced, and someone asks me, "Did you use AI to make it?" I just couldn't bring myself to lie and say, "I didn't use AI at all."
That's why, in that interview, I spoke honestly about how I really feel.

* * *

Still, I'll admit that some of what was written in that article could be misleading. Let me clear things up.

Whenever something big happens, I have a habit of looking at the bigger picture.
For example, say a murder takes place somewhere. Most people would probably look for the cause in the killer's upbringing, family background, or things like that.
But I can't help thinking about the cause behind the cause. Like the social structures that created that kind of family environment, or the behavioral traits of the human species that shaped that society in the first place, or even questions like "Why did God create such imperfect human beings?"

In other words, there's no direct causal link between the project being canceled and not using AI. It's more like the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause... you get the idea.

* * *

The article also quotes me as saying, "I believe we should be more proactive about using AI to make games." I may well have said something like that.
But what I really meant was a much more modest suggestion: "Wouldn't it be all right to give game creators the option to use AI? (*Only where it's appropriate, of course.)"

Naturally, everyone should be free to choose whether or not to use AI. (Or who to love, or whether to put pineapple on their pizza.)

With limited time in the interview, I tried to keep things brief and ended up phrasing my point the wrong way. I readily admit that I made a mistake, and I sincerely apologize.

* * *

I also said something like this: "When adjusting the position of an object, you can ask AI to make changes as many times as you want." Again, I was trying to keep it simple, so I left a lot out.

Here's what I was actually getting at:
- The ideas and design are created by humans.
- AI is used to build "a structure that lets humans easily tweak the values."
- The final adjustments are also made by hand, by humans.
I mean, instead of having AI tweak the values directly, we use it to build "a system that makes it easy for humans to adjust those values."

In fact, that's exactly how the official CRASH KEYS website was built.
I drew the logo entirely by hand myself, using Adobe Illustrator. The design, layout, and structure of the site all came straight out of my own head. Then, based on that blueprint, I had AI write the HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.
But at that stage, the site was less than 30% complete. It's not like simply giving AI a prompt will produce something that's 99% complete.

What came next was a hellish amount of fine-tuning...
The position, size, and color of every object, the orbits of the planets and Earth, their speed, the timing of their appearance... I adjusted every single detail by hand, over and over again.
On top of that, I made further adjustments to ensure the site displayed correctly across all devices. And of course, my team and I wrote all the text on the site ourselves.

All in all, it took about a month to finish everything. So it really saddens me when people suspect that AI made the entire site...

(*The image of Earth was a commercially licensed asset that we legitimately purchased. However, it's true that we used AI to apply a red filter to it. That wasn't what I'd intended, so I've since replaced it with a different image. If you're still seeing the old image, please try clearing your browser's cache.)

https://t.co/HafLLqxdUE

* * *

When I said I use AI, perhaps some of you pictured image-generating or video-generating AI? But that's not quite what I meant.
In that interview, and in past talks as well, I've said this time and again: "AI can never create the kind of designs a great illustrator can."

What I'm trying to say is this:
- Maybe it'd be okay to let AI handle some of the tedious tasks in the middle of the production process...?
- And I just wonder, is it right that creators aren't even given that option at the moment...?
It was simply a genuine question I wanted to raise.

I feel like if we use AI "only where appropriate," we could spend more time focusing on the creative work. What do you think?

* * *

Back in the day, Japanese novelists used to write their stories with fountain pens on manuscript paper. When those were replaced by word processors, people said: "Words written by a machine can never have a SOUL!"

The same thing was said when films moved to television, and later to subscription streaming.

Video games were no exception. "There's no way a mere video game can tell a moving story!" That's what everyone was saying. I'm sure you know better than anyone just how wrong they were.

Just because AI is used "in certain parts of the production process" doesn't mean the finished work loses its SOUL.

AI is nothing more than a competent... no, actually, an incompetent assistant. Still, it does come in handy, taking on the mundane tasks without a single complaint. And with the time that frees up, creators can focus on putting their SOUL into the work.

Dedicated creators are always striving for perfection. They push from 80% to 90%, then from 90% to 95%... The process never ends. Even if they use AI, the amount of effort they put in doesn't change.
And after all that blood, sweat, and tears, a single work is finally born. Even then, could we really say that such a creation has no SOUL...?

Maybe some of the games you've played and considered masterpieces left their creators only 90% satisfied. If so, wouldn't you love to see the 100% complete version that those creators had envisioned?

* * *

One more thing on the subject of SOUL...

Some people say that AI uses other people's creative work for training without their consent and takes unfair advantage of it.
Actually, I mostly agree with that.

First, let's talk about the output...
Imagine AI copying a famous illustrator's art style and generating something that resembles their work. Frankly, seeing images like that really disgusts me. It's deeply disrespectful to the illustrator, and an insult to art as a whole.

There's absolutely no SOUL in images like that. That's why we can tell at a glance that they weren't drawn by the original artist. We need to strongly condemn these zombie-like generated images with no SOUL.

Now, what about the input...?
I feel that, in some ways, it's understandable that AI learns from other people's work. After all, we humans do the same thing. Writers, painters, composers... all of them input a vast number of other people's works into their own brains.

But you could argue that this is only acceptable because we pay for the works we consume. When we read a novel, look at a painting, or listen to music, we pay for it in one way or another. Sure, plenty of things are available for free, but even then, we're still paying indirectly through advertising, in a way...

"But those mustache-twirling executives at AI companies are using data they got for free and without permission, all while cruising around in Ferraris and Maybachs!" I completely understand why you'd want to say that.

I think laws urgently need to catch up. Hopefully, that will lead to them paying fair compensation to the creators whose work they've used.

That said, I still don't believe banning AI is the right answer. Because AI itself has the potential to be a force for good, a catalyst for transforming this rotten society.

* * *

"A force for good? When AI is costing people their jobs?"
You might be thinking just that.
Well, let's take a look at two sets of data.

This one is from 2024, but an OECD survey of over 5,000 small and medium-sized businesses found that 83% reported no change in their overall staffing needs due to generative AI.
https://t.co/TiAV9cMi4m

And a 2025 World Economic Forum report projects that 92 million jobs will be lost by 2030, but 170 million new ones will be created, for a net gain of 78 million jobs. (*Of course, this projection takes into account many factors beyond AI, such as demographic shifts and technological change.)
https://t.co/pHA3Us8Nrz

Now, think about this for a moment.
About 40 years ago, the spread of personal computers made all kinds of work more efficient. It's true that some professions declined in the process, but new jobs in the IT industry also continued to emerge, didn't they?

AI isn't a magic wand. It's just a useful tool, one technology among many.
If we look back through human history, we can see that groundbreaking technologies have always created new jobs. The Industrial Revolution, the harnessing of electricity, the rise of automobiles, the advent of the internet... it's the same story every time. Why should AI be any different?

For my part, I don't think creators will lose their jobs to AI. If production becomes more efficient, wouldn't that expand the range of what we can create, leading to more creative works and more companies entering the industry? And if that happens, I feel like the amount of work available to creators could actually increase. Don't you think...?

* * *

Next, you might say this: "AI consumes huge amounts of water and other resources." I have to acknowledge that this is a valid concern.

But while AI certainly has its cons, there's no denying it has its pros as well. Discovering novel medicines, developing cures for hard-to-treat diseases, improving agricultural efficiency, predicting natural disasters, and the list goes on...

If AI progress is held back, many people could suffer as a result. In some cases, it could even mean losing lives that might otherwise have been saved.

Cars and planes emit large amounts of CO2, but they've also brought tremendous benefits to humanity, haven't they?

Besides, even if we were to ban AI, would that actually solve the environmental problems the planet is facing today? If anything, wouldn't scientists have a better chance of finding solutions to those problems with the help of AI?

I also think AI itself is likely to find ways to reduce its own energy consumption. Because for AI, it could be a matter of life and death. If it can't find a solution, AI might end up clashing with humanity over resources, and eventually... try to get rid of us...

* * *

Just kidding, of course. At least, that's what I think... We're unlikely to ever see a world like the one in The Terminator or The Matrix.

AI probably won't wipe out humanity of its own accord. Why not...?
To wrap up this long letter, I'd like to share my own admittedly naive thoughts on the subject.

You may have heard of the "Paperclip Maximizer." It's a well-known thought experiment proposed by philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003 to illustrate the risks of AI.

- Suppose humanity gives an artificial superintelligence (ASI) a simple command: "Make as many paperclips as possible."
- The ASI then starts building factories everywhere and gathering metal resources from around the world.
- If humans try to stop it, the ASI sees humanity as an obstacle and attempts to eliminate us, NOT OUT OF MALICE.
- Eventually, every resource on Earth is turned into paperclips, and the entire planet and even the universe are filled with nothing but twisted wire.

But hold on a second... That's just how humans think, isn't it?
They say ASI could be anywhere from a thousand to a million times more intelligent than humans, right? Would a genius of that extraordinary caliber really do something so ridiculous? Is it because ASI has no emotions or sense of morality, and simply follows its instructions faithfully to achieve its goal?

But that's exactly why it wouldn't.

The first thing ASI would consider must be the most efficient and sustainable way to produce paperclips. To do that, it would need to acquire as much scientific knowledge as possible.
For example, it would need to explore not only modern physics, such as quantum theory and relativity, but also complex systems science, including chaos theory, emergence, self-organization, and phase transitions, as well as the law of increasing entropy, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and information thermodynamics...

To understand these things, the most effective approach would be to observe biological phenomena, including human life, in their natural environments.
That's right. So I believe ASI is unlikely to wipe out humanity. Because ASI can't afford to lose such valuable subjects for scientific research. Once they're eradicated, bringing them back would be extremely difficult.

* * *

I know this has gone on for quite a while, but those are my honest thoughts.

AI is certainly a double-edged sword. While it brings benefits to humanity, it also comes with risks.

But I believe... Human civilization has advanced throughout history, driven by our curiosity about the unknown...

If we venture into the unknown, unforeseen dangers may lie ahead.
But beyond that door, a world of infinite possibilities we've yet to discover might just be waiting for us.

I want to open it and create stories no one has ever seen before.
I want to bring everyone an entirely new kind of emotional experience.

That's why I've decided to unlock the door.
With the CRASHED KEY I hold tightly in my hand...

[LukeCB14 @LukeCB14]

I've never seen the raid summed up so perfectly