Future? No Thanks! developer removes AI voices and offers refunds after public backlash
The intersection of generative AI and creative integrity has sparked a public conflict for Paolo "Molleindustria" Pedercini, the developer of the ecosocialist satire Future? No Thanks!. Following a wave of backlash from players and social media users, Pedercini has issued an update to remove AI-generated voices from the game and is offering refunds via PayPal or Venmo to any players who feel betrayed by the technology's presence.
The controversy centers on the use of ElevenLabs text-to-speech software to voice two specific in-game robot characters: an automated toilet and a personal assistant in a hair salon that mis-translates Roman idioms. Pedercini initially defended the choice as a thematic spoof, arguing that the "uncanny" nature of the AI voices was intended to satirize wonky artificial intelligence and that human voice acting had not worked as well for these specific roles. However, after disclosing the usage on his blog, the developer conceded that the "bad optics" of user-facing AI content outweighed the comedic intent. While he maintains that the game is now "0.001% worse" without these voices, they have been replaced with human performances.
Beyond the audio, the disclosure revealed that generative AI played a role in the game's technical foundation, though to a lesser extent. Pedercini stated that a tiny fraction of the code was written with the support of tools like ChatGPT and Claude during the final stages of development. He described these tools as powerful semantic search engines used primarily for diagnosing one-frame loading glitches and fixing a broken shader, noting that traditional search engines have become too degraded to provide meaningful technical results. He clarified that 99% of the codebase was written before such tools were viable and noted that because AI-generated code is difficult to isolate and remove once integrated, it remains in the project.
This admission created a paradox for Pedercini, who has described generative AI as a "technofascist, anti-human and anti-art project." The tension between his ideological stance and his practical application of the tools led to a volatile exchange on social media, particularly on Bluesky. Pedercini admitted that a previous version of his disclosure blog was "defeatist" and "hastily written," including a paragraph that appeared to dismiss colleagues advocating for an AI-free life. That section was deleted after being screengrabbed and shared online, with the developer later comparing the intensity of the backlash to previous high-profile online harassment campaigns.
Industry Transparency and Disclosure
The situation has highlighted a broader ambiguity regarding AI disclosure within the indie development scene. Pedercini pointed out that Valve updated Steam's rules in January to allow the use of "efficiency" tools, such as coding assistants, which does not require explicit disclosure on store pages. He suggested that many developers likely use AI for coding in silence because of these policies, and expressed concern that this specific episode of public backlash may actually discourage other developers from being transparent about their workflows.
In addition to the voice replacements and refund offers, the recent update to Future? No Thanks! included gameplay adjustments to ensure various in-game gigs provide more money, which should prevent players from being soft-locked out of completing all quests. These technical fixes arrive alongside a shift in the developer's future philosophy; Pedercini has stated that his next game will be completely hand-coded.
The fallout from this dispute underscores a growing divide between developers who view AI as a neutral productivity tool and a community that demands a total "AI-free" standard for ethical reasons. As the industry continues to grapple with the implications of IP theft and the displacement of human artists, the case of Future? No Thanks! serves as a cautionary example of how even satirical use of generative AI can be perceived as a breach of trust when it conflicts with a project's stated political and ethical values.
