A month ago, BoardGameBollocks, a mid-sized board game YouTube channel featuring a guy with strong opinions about board games speaking into a camera using a lot of swear words, made a video about his opinions about AI. He had a balanced opinion on AI, which is unsurprising, seeing how he himself is using AI to create his thumbnails: He said that for him AI is a tool, if it helps a good game designer to make a board game faster that was alright with him, and if a lazy game designer thought AI would do his work for him that would only create garbage. There was nothing exceptional about the video: The opinion was middle-of-the-road, and the style was in line with his usual content, some swear words of a guy talking at home into his camera.

However, somehow that video managed to trigger Tom Brewster, the Editor-in-Chief of the world's largest board game YouTube channel, Shut Up & Sit Down. So he used a secondary channel to post a video with his opinion: The BoardGameBollocks video on AI was "mythically bad, don't watch it", AI is the devil, and Shut Up & Sit Down has a policy to blacklist anybody using AI tools.

First of all, that was breaking internet etiquette: The biggest channel in a niche shouldn't badmouth a video of a channel in the same niche that has over ten times fewer subscribers. Calling out another content creator's video's lower production value, when that other content creator obviously hasn't the same financial means feels particularly mean. But Tom's video was also very bad on a range of other standards: It only said that the video he didn't like was bad, asked people to *not* watch it, didn't provide a link, and didn't engage with any of the arguments that were made in that video. Tom's video was just pure Cancel Culture: Another opinion is bad, so it shouldn't be heard, shouldn't be argued, should just be blacklisted. Tom's stated policy of Shut Up & Sit Down, in which he explicitly used the word "blacklist" to talk of any board game company using any form of AI, is also rather extreme. It is just Virtue Signalling, not a viable policy in a world where nobody can even tell most of the time whether for example the rulebook of a board game had some AI tools used for editing. Text and image generation and editing tools using AI are widespread by now, and unless a company is lazy and just uses AI content without further human review, the use of AI isn't even obvious.

Now if you make a video that badmouthes somebody else's video, there is likely to be a response. And if that somebody's trademark is using rude language, that response will be filled with rude language. The natural instincts of somebody having been insulted align with the economic interests on YouTube, where drama creates clicks, which creates revenue.

I do think that it is perfectly valid to be anti-AI. But when observing what has been going on on BGG and YouTube this year, it appears to me that being anti-AI is the new purity test of the hobby, with which some elite is trying to signal how much better and more virtuous they are than anybody else. We had games that don't even use AI being review bombed for just the suspicion of AI use. The AI witch hunt in the board game hobby is real, and it doesn't even serve its purpose.