‘Rideshare Stimulator’ Developers Disclose AI Use Steam After Days Of Controversy
Saber Interactive has added a detailed disclosure to Rideshare Stimulator’s Steam page after several days of controversy about the game’s use of generative AI. The issue intensified when former developer Stella Sacco said she had been replaced by ChatGPT during production, prompting criticism of the studio’s transparency and its treatment of staff.
The disclosure says the main campaign’s story, characters and dialogue were created by human writers, while AI was used for voice generation and some localisation. Its optional Free Ride mode contains AI-generated passenger missions and localised dialogue, and some in-game radio stations include labelled AI-generated music; Sacco also said her access to a development build was revoked despite having been laid off years earlier.
- Saber disclosed AI use after public controversy.
- Main campaign writing is described as human-made.
- Optional mode and some music use AI.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the disclosure may argue that it gives players meaningful, specific information about where generative AI appears, while making clear that the core campaign’s writing and characters were created by people. They may also see optional AI-driven missions, localisation and clearly labelled radio music as practical uses of technology that can expand variety and accessibility without replacing the central authored experience. From this view, transparent labelling lets consumers decide for themselves while allowing developers to experiment with new tools.
The case against
Critics may argue that the disclosure arrived only after public pressure and therefore does not resolve concerns about whether workers and customers were treated openly from the outset. Stella Sacco’s account of being replaced by ChatGPT raises a broader concern that AI adoption can displace creative labour and weaken trust, even if parts of the game remain human-written. They may also contend that AI-generated content can make a game feel less genuinely authored, and that clear labelling is necessary but not sufficient where employment practices and consent remain in question.