[00:02] for context, the last Crazy Taxi game that came out was in like 2002. So, all the way at the bottom of the Steam page is a little tag, AI-generated content disclosure. The developers describe how their game uses AI. And it reads, "At
[00:14] Sega Corporations, we utilize generative AI as a support tool for developers, aiming to provide better content to our users and enable developers to focus more on creative tasks. We have used such generative AI support tools during
[00:27] the development of Crazy Taxi World Tour. No AI was used in reference to the performers in the game." A top comment for a post about this reads, "This is why we're sticking to the PS2 version." And a Kotaku article written by Kenneth
[00:39] Shepherd provided even more context. Where the original series creator, Kenji writing, quote, "We used it as a reference. Quote, so our artists will ideas, and they would look at that generated image, and they would draw the
[00:53] everything from programming to assets, everything is made by an actual human. to look at, and they would actually create the thing that would go into the game. So, I guess used in the concept of concept art." And people in the comments
[01:08] had their things to say. One of the top comments reads, quote, "We were lazy to do the concept art and copy from the plagiarism machine." End quote. "F off. they wanted to generate their ideas, they would draw the effing idea, you
[01:21] know, which is their job as a concept artist." Another user says, "Using implementing them yourself is not meaningfully different from how AI straight up a terrible and lazy answer that made them look even worse. Sorry,
[01:35] this was just funny. Quote, "You need to AI-generate a taxi for a reference?" End quote. Because again, this is a taxi driving game.