id Software’s former co-owner says they absolutely would’ve used gen AI back in the day: ‘John Carmack would be like making Skynet or something’
Former id Software co-owner Tim Willits said the studio would “absolutely” have used generative AI if the technology had been available during its formative years. His comments matter because they add a prominent veteran game developer’s support to a continuing industry debate over whether AI should be treated as a practical production tool or a threat to creative work.
Willits portrayed id Software as a company that embraced technology which could help it make games, and suggested co-founder John Carmack would have pursued AI especially aggressively, joking that he might have created “Skynet”. The remarks concern hypothetical past use of generative AI rather than confirmation that id Software used such tools on its earlier games.
- Tim Willits says id Software would have used generative AI.
- He describes id as historically eager to adopt useful technology.
- He jokes John Carmack might have built “Skynet”.
New here? Start with this
id Software is a video game studio best known for influential action games such as Doom and Quake. Tim Willits was a senior figure and co-owner there, while John Carmack was a co-founder known for his work on game technology.
Generative AI refers to computer systems that can produce new material, such as text, images or code, from prompts and examples. Game makers are debating whether these tools can help with production and experimentation, and how their use might affect creative work and jobs.
Willits’s comments reflect how one veteran developer views the possible role of AI in game making. They describe a hypothetical use of the technology and do not mean it was used on id Software’s earlier games.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A thoughtful case for using generative AI is that game studios have long adopted tools that help them build ambitious work more efficiently. Used with care, AI could speed up routine production tasks and let developers spend more time on design and creative decisions; a technology-focused studio such as id might reasonably have explored those possibilities.
The case against
A thoughtful case for caution is that AI tools can affect workers’ roles, creative control and the value placed on human-made work, especially if studios use them to cut costs or replace contributors. Their output also raises questions about training data and originality, so a studio’s willingness to adopt new technology would not by itself settle whether a particular use was fair or beneficial.