After a former lead writer claimed Saber “replaced me with ChatGPT,” CEO Matthew Karch now claims, “Neither Saber nor Unigine have replaced any writers with AI,” for the Rideshare “Stimulator” game announced last month, developed by Unigine.
Saber denies replacing Rideshare Stimulator’s writers with ChatGPT
Saber’s CEO says the game’s story was ‘written entirely by real people’ except for one experimental mode.
Saber’s CEO says the game’s story was ‘written entirely by real people’ except for one experimental mode.
The writer, Stella Sacco, says differently, however, posting on Bluesky that “I was lead writer on this one! And Saber replaced me with ChatGPT midway through development. All the passenger voices were AI too. Either they changed direction at some point or they’re not disclosing it on Steam.”
Saber describes Rideshare “Stimulator” as an “immersive driving simulation game that puts you behind the wheel as a rideshare business owner,” and the segments shown in a teaser trailer appear to include AI-generated writing and audio for the simulated riders who are being picked up. The game’s Steam listing does not currently include any disclosure about using generative AI.
A statement from Karch provided to The Verge says, “The game will also feature an experimental, free-ride mode that by necessity incorporates AI as the number of passengers in the game is infinite. We are firm believers in using AI tools to improve or enhance gameplay experiences and improve NPC behavior as we have done since Saber was founded in 2001,” it continued, also claiming that “As the industry has continued to contract, Saber continues to hire. None of our 3000+ employees have to worry about being replaced by AI.”
Sacco replied to Karch’s statement in a message sent to The Verge. “My indignation at being called a liar by that statement aside, you can’t meaningfully say both ‘writers wrote the story’ and ‘computers wrote the text,’” Sacco says. “If rides I wrote are in there, and also rides AI wrote or will write are in there, then AI was still used, and I was still replaced, just as Saber told me they were doing in December 2023. They’re trying to have it both ways. You can’t win on the labor part of the statement while you admit you took work away from labor in the next part. It’s ridiculous.”
Most Popular
- Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t understand how to live
- Why your Amazon order confirmation emails have become so unhelpful
- Xbox Elite 3 prototype pad leaks with tiny built-in screen
- Google’s upcoming Pixel phones are for the fans, even if its launch event isn’t
- Claude will apply invisible watermarks to AI text and images
Facts Only
* Saber and Unigine are the entities developing the game Rideshare Stimulator.
* Matthew Karch is the CEO of Saber.
* Stella Sacco is a former lead writer for Rideshare Stimulator.
* Karch stated that neither Saber nor Unigine replaced writers with AI.
* Sacco stated that Saber replaced her with ChatGPT midway through development.
* Sacco stated that passenger voices in the game were AI.
* Karch stated the game's story was written by real people, except for an experimental free-ride mode.
* Karch stated the free-ride mode incorporates AI to handle an infinite number of passengers.
* Saber employs over 3,000 people.
* The game's Steam listing contains no disclosure regarding generative AI.
* Sacco claims Saber informed her of the replacement in December 2023.
Executive Summary
A public dispute has emerged between Saber CEO Matthew Karch and former lead writer Stella Sacco regarding the use of generative AI in the development of Rideshare Stimulator. Sacco alleges she was replaced by ChatGPT mid-development and that the game's passenger voices are AI-generated. Conversely, Karch asserts that the story was written entirely by humans, with the sole exception of an "experimental, free-ride mode" that utilizes AI to manage an infinite passenger count.
The conflict centers on the definition of "replacing" labor. While the company maintains that its workforce is secure and writers were not replaced, the former lead writer argues that incorporating AI-generated text and voices into the game's core experience constitutes a removal of human labor. There is currently no official AI disclosure on the game's Steam listing, and the two parties remain in direct contradiction regarding the extent of AI's role in the narrative's creation.
Full Take
The strongest version of the company's narrative is that AI is being used as a scalable tool for procedural content—specifically for "infinite" interactions—rather than as a replacement for the core narrative architecture. In this view, the "story" (the overarching plot and world-building) remains a human product, while the "text" (the iterative, voluminous dialogue of NPCs) is a technical implementation.
However, this creates a semantic collision. The core tension rests on the distinction between "story" and "text." By conceding that AI writes the dialogue for an infinite mode, the company admits that AI is performing the functional labor of a writer. The conflict suggests a pattern where "AI enhancement" is used as a corporate euphemism for the displacement of entry-level or iterative creative labor. The root cause is a paradigm shift in the creative industry: moving from a "crafted" model (where every line is intentional) to a "generative" model (where volume is prioritized over specific authorship).
This implies a degradation of human agency in the creative process, where the writer is relegated to a "prompt engineer" or "architect," while the actual expression of the characters is outsourced to a model. The cost is borne by the specialist worker; the benefit is captured by the developer in the form of reduced overhead and infinite scalability.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity
Bridge Questions: If a game's "story" is human but its "dialogue" is AI, who is the actual author of the player's experience? At what percentage of AI-generated content does a "human-written" claim become a misrepresentation?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated campaign would use this story to trigger widespread panic among creative professionals to force immediate legislative regulation of AI in gaming. This specific account is a bilateral dispute between an employer and a former employee and does not match that structural pattern.
Sentinel — Human
The text appears to be a factual report detailing an evolving dispute between company leadership and a former writer regarding the use of AI in game development, exhibiting strong human-driven narrative tension.