Elon Musk is more at risk of losing his job to AI than artists are according to Take-Two's CEO: 'If AI were going to take anyone's job, wouldn't it take his job?'

Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of Take-Two Interactive was recently asked about the integration of AI within games like Grand Theft Auto 6, what its actual use case is, and what it means for artists and other developers. Surprisingly, Zelnick isn't worried about the job security of his artists, instead he's more concerned about the richest man in the world.

"If AI were going to get rid of employment, the richest man on Earth, Elon Musk, knows a little something about AI, last time I checked," Zelnick says during an interview at the Semafor World Economy 2026 panel. "He has unlimited financial resources and he has unlimited human resources and he has, apparently, an unlimited amount of ideas, he also knows his way around AI. The man works 20 hours a day, if AI were going to take anyone's job wouldn't it take his job, the richest guy on Earth. Wouldn't that be like job number one for AI to take. Why is he so busy?"

"Maybe Elon Musk is indeed a simulation, it's possible," Zelnick adds. "I mean in fairness if you were going to choose one person who was a simulation he would be my number one choice."

On the other hand, Zelnick seems to think that AI will be nothing but a help to his artists, as it acts as the heavy lifter, taking mundane jobs away from devs: "The three part strategy of Take-Two is 'Be the most creative. Be the most innovative. Be the most efficient' and we think AI informs all three. Briefly on creativity, anything you can do that reduces mundane work means our creators can do more exciting work."

We've actually seen some developers use machine learning to cut out the busy work, such as World of Warcraft. Franchise director John Hight previously explained that while WoW isn't fully buying into the generative AI rush the team is prepared to use machine learning to automate certain processes. A good example of this is how 2018's Into the Spiderverse used machine learning to help redraw thousands of comic book ink lines on existing panels.

"When I started in the videogame business which was, believe it or not, in 1993, if you wanted to create a lawn, an artist had to create individual blades of grass otherwise it would look like concrete," Zelnick continues. "Today, pre-AI, if one of my artists, and I have many thousands of them, want to create a lawn, they press the lawn button, and AI does that on steroids.

"So what does that mean? That does not mean that all of my artists are out of work. No, they won't be out of work, they'll be doing higher quality work, they don't care about lawns anymore, they care about this incredible creature."

This idea that artists will be able to focus on the bigger picture or more complex issues is not wholly reassuring. The interview even posits the question of what happens when AI evolves to have a "creature button", essentially swallowing up even more artistic jobs.

To this Zelnick replies: "The creature button is going to take data using AI which is backward-looking and we need to make creatures that are forward-looking to make hits. And so our creators have to do that."

That's all well and good for Take Two, but there's no guarantee all publishers will have the same guidelines and will favour forward thinking human-made art over mass manufactured designs which are cheaper and faster to create. The gaming industry's track record isn't exactly reassuring.

But Zelnick still stays firm in his opinion that AI won't actually rob artists of their jobs: "For those of you who think you're going to be made unemployed by AI, two things: technology creates productivity, productivity creates GDP, GDP creates more employment. Remember the paperless office? We were promised because of digital technology we'd have a paperless office. We use more paper in offices today than ever before."

To round it all off, Zelnick asks one more question: "And by the way, why am I working harder than ever despite the fact that I've totally accepted AI into every part of my life?"

Perhaps it's because many current AI tools aren't actually meant to help productivity. They're more a Trojan horse whose sole use case is to worm its way into every part of our day regardless of efficiency, because it's developed by people who have bet too much money and their own professional credentials on its success, and anything other than complete infiltration wouldn't be enough to justify the cost spent. But I don't know, that's just a thought.