Musing on how game devs are going to approach the EU AI Act and what it truly protects.
As always, this is a legal flavored existential crisis, not legal advice. If you like following along with my madness, consider subscribing so that you can descend into the void alongside me!
Perhaps it was when Lydia looked out onto the horizon and reflected on the liminality of existence that made game developers everywhere breathe a collective gasp of awe. What if your NPCs could respond to the player’s declaration of love or hold a vendetta over you catching them ablaze in your last fireball without needing to script it, write dialogue trees, or pay voice actors to deliver 48 line permutations about the weather? In 2023, we saw the AI Follower Framework, now named CHIM, a Skyrim mod where the NPCs are AI-driven. Dialogue generated on the fly. Fully voiced by a model, no actor in the credits.
And suddenly, what felt like science fiction now fits neatly inside your mod folder.
That one mod was just the beginning for AI integration into videogames and now that we’re solidly in stage 2 of AI (let’s assume it metastasizes like a cancer – I have tangential gripes about classifying things in finite stages we’ll save it for a different rant) we’re seeing models that can generate writing, 3D models, and voice acting. Promising to solve a litany of grueling dev problems while layering “smart” features into every crevice and cranny of the experience.
In practice, I’ve seen AI successfully used to unlock novel, dynamic playthroughs. And I’ve seen it crash and burn – convoluting the plot, breaking immersion, or tumbling headfirst into uncanny valley hell. Concerns about displacement and identity theft aren’t theoretical anymore. (See: the last Substack rant on the price of your voice.)
But fear not, anti-AI folks! Regulation is always just around the corner, trailed by bureaucracy and fines. Europe (first to GDPR, first to AI regulation) is already ahead of the curve. And judging by the fine print, the EU finds AI violations more troubling than privacy breaches: think 6% of global annual revenue, not 4%.
Like GDPR, the EU AI Act casts a wide net. It doesn’t care if your AI generates dialogue, art, music, or memes. What it does care about is human impact: does this AI influence thought? Infringe on rights? Cause harm? From that lens, the Act sorts all AI systems into three buckets:
Unacceptable Risk: Banned outright.
High Risk: Allowed, but heavily regulated.
Limited / Minimal Risk: Disclose, label, move on.
The Risky Rundown
Unacceptable Risk. These systems are inherently manipulative, exploitative, or rights-violating. Think: an MMORPG for kids that profiles emotional states to push in-game purchases. Or a VR title that scans your retinas to adjust content availability. If it sounds like it came from the creative desk of a cartoon villain mid-mustachio twirl, it’s probably illegal.
High Risk. These aren’t banned, but they must meet higher compliance thresholds. Suppose an eSports platform uses AI to determine tournament eligibility. That impacts livelihoods. Or a biometric login system (face, fingerprint, voice) becomes a requirement for access – also high risk. These systems affect rights, access, or economic opportunity.
Limited / Minimal Risk. The zone everyone wants to fall into. NPCs like our modded Lydia? Safe. AI-generated side quests, procedural terrain, cosmetic art, recommendation engines, translation tools? Also here! That is, as long as there’s no profiling, discrimination, or coercion lurking under the hood. Transparency is key. Label it, disclose it, keep it clean.
So now that we know the risks… what do?
The Act is, predictably, vague on implementation specifics… but that’s what frameworks are for! Smart devs are already leaning into established standards like XRSI or NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework.
Which is good, considering the Act goes into effect on August 2, 2026.
But for a quick-and-dirty compliance mindset, here’s what the EU expects you to have before the player sets foot in your AI-enhanced sandbox:
1. Consent is King
You’re required to disclose, clearly and early, any interaction with an AI system that influences gameplay, dialogue, pricing, or content. Especially if it collects user data or affects decision-making.
Do this: Label AI-generated characters and interactions. Give players opt-ins for emotional or biometric tracking (if you must go there).
Don’t do this: Bury it in a TOS nobody reads. The EU will treat that like a confession.
2. Draft the Damn AI Policy
You need internal documentation showing how AI is used, tested, and governed. This isn’t optional. It includes:
A risk assessment
Your training datasets (biases, sources)
Who oversees what
Incident reporting procedures
3. Log Everything
If the AI makes a decision (matchmaking, banning, targeting) it better be logged. The regulators want audit trails, and so will your players when something breaks.
4. Keep a Human in the Loop
No fully autonomous moderation. No unappealable AI bans. If the system affects player access or identity, a human must be able to review and override it.
5. Test for Robustness, Not Just Features
If your AI gets weird when someone speedruns backwards while standing on a chicken, you’ve got a problem. Resilience testing and edge-case QA should be part of your build.
And here’s where it gets a little maniacal…
Labeling chatbots and adaptive NPCs as “low-risk” may be wishful thinking. We’ve already seen what happens when a general-purpose AI becomes a confidant, therapist, or mirror for someone’s despair and what follows when it missteps. The rash of suicides and psychological breakdowns tied to conversational systems are case studies in what happens when emotional simulation outpaces moral oversight.
So yes, on paper, chatbots live comfortably in the Limited Risk tier. But if those same systems begin nudging vulnerable users toward dependency or harm, we’ll be staring at a regulatory metamorphosis in real time. The EU won’t care that your NPC was designed for immersion when it becomes evidence in an inquest.
Early adopters should take note: risk is not static. “Low” today can become “high” the moment your AI starts touching hearts, not just buttons. And when that happens, it won’t just be your code under review. It’ll be your consent systems, your player safety policies, your entire compliance philosophy.
If Europe taught us anything with GDPR, it’s this: they don’t care how clever your feature is. They care who it hurts.
So build boldly. But build like someone is watching. Because someone already is.
This Grimoire of Many Musings is for entertainment, education, and the occasional act of legal autopsy. It is analysis, not legal advice; if you want that, hire counsel. It reflects no one’s views in real life except the voices rattling around Inverlyst’s head. No past, present, or future employer has signed off on any of this.
Support the madness by subscribing and offering digital validation in the form of likes.
Leave a Reply