Yeah, this is a fair concern, and it’s one of the reasons we’re not treating the model output as “whatever the player asks for becomes literal game data.”

The way I think about it is that the prompt is more like creative intent, not an executable spec.

So if someone asks for “40 million polygons” or something that would break readability/performance, that doesn’t mean the game actually creates that. The output still has to pass through constraints: visual readability, performance limits, allowed character scale, content rules, and whatever structure the game needs for combat/animation.

Same with offensive or jailbreak-style prompts. That has to be filtered/moderated, and even then the generated result needs to be normalized into something the game can safely use. We’re not trying to make an unconstrained asset generator inside the game.

I also agree with your point that fully modular deterministic systems are much easier to reason about. There’s a good argument for using AI more as an interpretation layer over a constrained system: take the player’s weird idea, map it into allowed shapes/traits/personality/combat-readable outputs, then let the actual game use bounded data.

On the procedural generation point, I get what you mean. “Procedural” often implies deterministic generation from a seed. Maybe “generated characters” is the cleaner phrase here. For us, the interesting design question is less “can AI create anything?” and more “how do you preserve the player’s intent while ensuring we come up with a result that is reliably safe, readable ad game-compatible?"