---
title: "IGN Has Mistaken a Cool Crocodile for an Argument"
slug: "ign-has-mistaken-a-cool-crocodile-for-an-argument"
canonical_url: "https://modalpathethics.com/ign-has-mistaken-a-cool-crocodile-for-an-argument/"
mirror_url: "https://mirror.modalpathethics.com/articles/ign-has-mistaken-a-cool-crocodile-for-an-argument.md"
published_at: "2026-10-14T06:00:00.000-05:00"
updated_at: "2026-10-14T06:00:00.000-05:00"
tags:
  - "Modal Systems"
  - "News"
authors:
  - "Aidan Lawson"
source: "Ghost Content API — published post"
mirror_generated_at: "2026-10-27T18:14:50.285Z"
mirror_generator_version: "2.0.0"
sha256_plaintext: "a7848e8ab4998be35cfd1d8d12466fb70bdc5bf65c57b7cf44d100291280c3a7"
---
# IGN Has Mistaken a Cool Crocodile for an Argument

IGN's Mat Jones has [written an article](https://www.ign.com/articles/ai-couldnt-have-made-star-wars-galactic-racers-biddy-blas?ref=modalpathethics.com) explaining why artificial intelligence could **never** have created Biddy Blas, the furious little crocodile from _Star Wars: Galactic Racer_.

Apparently, this crocodile is very funny.

Good.

I do love a very funny crocodile.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/43/2043f11a-6ae3-404c-bb28-01fce8d9ac88/content/images/2026/10/image-65.png)

Unfortunately, Jones has decided this crocodile proves something about artificial intelligence that this crocodile does not prove.

His argument is extraordinary because he almost immediately **explains why it is wrong**.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/43/2043f11a-6ae3-404c-bb28-01fce8d9ac88/content/images/2026/10/image-66.png)

-   He acknowledges that AI could generate an angry crocodile wearing a hat.
    -   It could produce a ridiculous voice.
        -   It could write the nonsense dialogue.

**But**, he argues, **only the human writers** could have chosen the catchphrase **_"Scrib Doon,"_** and **only** performer Richard Summers-Calvert could have delivered it in the specific way that made the character funny.

**Yes, Mat. Correct.**

> **THE HUMAN CAN STILL DO THAT.**

-   The writer can still write **_Scrib Doon_**.
    -   The writer can write Skibidi Toilet.
-   The director can still direct.
-   The actor can still act.
-   The animator can still animate.
-   The artist can still draw.
-   The developer can still decide this crocodile needs a bigger hat.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/43/2043f11a-6ae3-404c-bb28-01fce8d9ac88/content/images/2026/10/image-67.png)

> **The developer can just make the crocodile faster.**

I mean what the fuck do we think is happening here?

-   Does installing a generative system somehow revoke the studio's ability to make creative decisions?
-   Does the machine obtain custody of the silly crocodile?
-   Is the writer legally prohibited from typing **_DOON_** once a model has generated a texture?

Jones even quotes an actor explaining that producing the right noises does not reproduce everything an actor contributes. Someone would still need to direct and shape the performance.

> **CORRECT.**

You have discovered that a production instrument does not automatically become the author of every decision in the production.

Welcome to filmmaking.

There have been cameras over here for a while.

There is another cool problem here.

-   Jones says AI cannot create a breakout character.
    -   **No creator can ever guarantee one.**

A writer can invent a character. An artist can render it. An actor can perform it. A director can edit it. An audience can then decide that _**this**_ furious little crocodile is the greatest achievement in the history of _Star Wars_.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/43/2043f11a-6ae3-404c-bb28-01fce8d9ac88/content/images/2026/10/image-68.png)

That last step belongs to the **audience**, not the creators or their tools.

A **breakout character** is an outcome of the entire production and reception process. **Nobody** gets to manufacture cultural affection on command.

Anyway, Jones has a legitimate concern about Epic's reported interest in AI-first development. If a studio uses these systems to eliminate workers, hollow out creative departments, or substitute inferior outputs for work it could have supported, then we can examine those transitions.

That would be an argument.

Instead, I have been handed a crocodile and instructed to infer a technological impossibility from how much everybody likes him.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/43/2043f11a-6ae3-404c-bb28-01fce8d9ac88/content/images/2026/10/image-69.png)

> **The humans are still piloting the robots.**

Modal Path Ethics [just finished explaining this](https://modalpathethics.com/this-is-not-worker-solidarity-you-morons/) very calmly. The **instrument** does not make the **human** disappear. The _presence of human creativity_ does not establish **_the absence of useful artificial instruments_**.

Production choices, labor relations, artistic quality, and creative authorship remain **different** questions.

Anyway.

I have a proposal for the next _Star Wars_ videogame.

> **Live actors in rubber suits.**

-   Every man.
-   Every alien.
    -   Real people
        -   performing real emotions
            -   inside **real rubber costumes.**

No synthetic crocodiles.

No suspicious polygons.

No artificial animation.

If we need our crocodile to run faster, we can have a human editor speed up the footage.

Wait.

**FUCK.**

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/43/2043f11a-6ae3-404c-bb28-01fce8d9ac88/content/images/2026/10/image-71.png)