According to him, AI is already widely used in game studios, and the key difference lies in whether companies are willing to talk about it openly. Hino emphasized that AI should be seen as a tool, not as an inherently negative phenomenon. Commenting on the comparison of AI to plagiarism, he noted:
AI is sometimes equated with plagiarism, but a knife can be used for cooking or as a weapon, and computers can be used for creating games and for cybercrime.
Hino explained that the controversy surrounding Level-5 arose from comments about an unannounced AI-themed project. As part of an experiment, one of the programmers deliberately used AI to generate code, but these words were interpreted too broadly. He denied claims that the studio uses AI to write 80–90% of the code, noting that such a level would mean an unprecedented technological leap.
At the same time, Hino acknowledged that AI already saves development time and, in the future, can reduce game production cycles. He also warned against perceiving AI as an unethical tool:
Depending on how it is used, AI can create plagiarism, but when used correctly, it can enrich the creative world.
In conclusion, Hino emphasized that AI should remain a tool in the hands of humans, not a replacement for creative intent, and promised to reveal Level-5's position in more detail on the studio's blog.