D&D General Hasbro CEO Says AI Integration Has Been "A Clear Success"

We've known for some time that Hasbro CEO--and former president of Wizards of the Coast--Chris Cocks is an avid AI supporter and enthusiast. He previously noted that of the 30-40 people he games with regularly, "there's not a single person who doesn't use AI somehow for either campaign development or character development or story ideas." In a 2025 interview he described himself as an "AI bull".

In Hasbro's latest earnings call, Cocks briefly addressed the use of AI within the company. While he mentions Hasbro, Wizards of the Coast and the digital studio teams, he doesn't specifically namecheck Dungeons & Dragons. However, he does tout Hasbro's AI integration as a "clear success", referring primarily to non-creative operations such as finances, supply chains, and general productivity enhancements, and emphasises that "people make the decisions and people own the creative outcomes". He also notes that individual teams choose whether or not to use AI.

So while it is clear that AI is deeply embedded in Hasbro's workflows, it is not clear to what extent that applies to Dungeons & Dragons. WotC has indicated multiple times that it will not use AI artwork, and its freelance contracts explicitly prohibit its use. The company also removed AI-generated artwork in 2023's Bigby's Presents: Glory of the Giants.

Before I close, I want to address AI, and how we're using it at Hasbro. We're taking a human-centric creator-led approach. AI is a tool that helps our teams move faster and focus on higher-value work, but people make the decisions and people own the creative outcomes. Teams also have choice in how they use it, including not to use it at all when it doesn't fit the work or the brand. We're beyond experimentation. We're deploying AI across financial planning, forecasting, order management, supply chain operations, training and everyday productivity. Under enterprise controls and clear guidelines around responsible use and IP protection. Anyone who knows me knows I'm an enthusiastic AI user and that mindset extends across the enterprise. We're partnering with best-in-class platforms, including Google Gemini, OpenAI and 11 labs to embed AI into workflows where it adds real value. The impact is tangible. Over the next year, we anticipate these workflows will free up more than 1 million hours of lower-value work, and we're reinvesting that capacity into innovation, creativity and serving fans. Our portfolio of IP and the creators and talent behind it are the foundation of this strategy. Great IP plus great storytelling is durable as technology evolves, and it positions us to benefit from disruption rather than being displaced by it.

In toys, AI-assisted design, paired with 3D printing has fundamentally improved our process. We've reduced time from concept to physical prototype by roughly 80%, enabling faster iteration and more experimentation with human judgment and human craft determining what ultimately gets selected and turned into a final product. We believe the winners in AI will be companies that combine deep IP, creative talent and disciplined deployment. That's exactly where Hasbro sits. As we enter 2026, we view playing to Win and more importantly, the execution behind it by our Hasbro, Wizards of the Coast and digital studio teams as a clear success.

- Chris Cocks, Hasbro CEO​

​

Wizards of the Coast's most recent statement on AI said "For 50 years, D&D has been built on the innovation, ingenuity, and hard work of talented people who sculpt a beautiful, creative game. That isn't changing. Our internal guidelines remain the same with regards to artificial intelligence tools: We require artists, writers, and creatives contributing to the D&D TTRPG to refrain from using AI generative tools to create final D&D products. We work with some of the most talented artists and creatives in the world, and we believe those people are what makes D&D great."

A small survey of about 500 users right here on EN World in April 2025 indicated that just over 60% of users would not buy D&D products made with AI.

 

[chuckdee]

Each one of those computers is servicing multiple users at a time, let alone over the course of the day. Asking a LLM to make some fairy rhymes probably costs less in electricity than playing a video game for fifteen minutes.

There are many more factors that are being left out of this equation. And this comes from someone who is a proponent of responsible AI use. A lot about energy use is based on what model you're asking, no matter how complex the query. Most of these models that you would ask this of are not simple models, so have proportionally more use for even a simple query.

 

[Clint_L]

So... we're OK with the organized theft and re-use of human-created art because the machines that stole the art are so good at mimicking what they stole that the theft is now something we're gonna ignore?

Each computer in a data centre uses as much power in one hour as I use for my house each day.

But hey, the results look good so we'll ignore that ethical quandary?

I’m sorry, but you seem to be extrapolating quite a lot from my factual point that humans cannot reliably differentiate between human and AI art.

Is there something in my actual comment you wish to discuss, or are you just randomly venting? If the latter, then by all means carry on, but please leave me out of it.

 

[Moving Pictures]

I’m sorry, but you seem to be extrapolating quite a lot from my factual point that humans cannot reliably differentiate between human and AI art.

Is there something in my actual comment you wish to discuss, or are you just randomly venting? If the latter, then by all means carry on, but please leave me out of it.

I'm challenging you on your statement. You seemed to suggest that because people couldn't tell the difference between AI material and flesh-tube material, that the AI material was somehow equivalent.

Was that not your point?

 

[chuckdee]

I'm challenging you on your statement. You seemed to suggest that because people couldn't tell the difference between AI material and flesh-tube material, that the AI material was somehow equivalent.

Was that not your point?

I have anecdotal evidence. But that's all it is- anecdotal. I don't think there's a way to get empirical evidence around this, which is the reason that, IMO, the query is useless.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm challenging you on your statement. You seemed to suggest that because people couldn't tell the difference between AI material and flesh-tube material, that the AI material was somehow equivalent.

Was that not your point?

Again, you are extrapolating. Here is my entire quotation:

And yet, in test after test, actual humans have trouble telling the difference. Everyone says they can, but when it's a blinded study...not so much.

Edit: case in point, I recently used a piece of art to illustrate a scene in my campaign. Two players told me how much they hated such obvious AI art. because, in effect, it was souless. It was not AI art. (I'm not sure I can post it here because of copyright issues, but it's from a 1970s Tolkien art book).

Where do you read me suggesting "that because people couldn't tell the difference between AI material and flesh-tube material, that the AI material was somehow equivalent"? Let alone all the other stuff you ranted about? What do you even mean by "equivalent"?

My point is exactly what I wrote: people have trouble telling the difference between the two. That is a fact, well established in many, many tests (my personal example is just a relevant anecdote). Then you added (and continue to add) assumptions that have nothing to do with what I wrote.

Specifically, I was responding to a a silly meme implying that people now understand what a soul is, having seen AI art (implying that it has none). It's a cute meme, but the fact is that people do not easily distinguish between AI and non-AI content. If they did, then we wouldn't be having a lot of these discussions.

 

[Moving Pictures]

This whole mess just become messier - or not. The US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on a Federal Court decision that found AI material cannot be copyrighted.

Which raises questions on how material with partial AI content can be treated.

 

[Moving Pictures]

Again, you are extrapolating.

Very well, then.

 

[Moving Pictures]

I have anecdotal evidence. But that's all it is- anecdotal. I don't think there's a way to get empirical evidence around this, which is the reason that, IMO, the query is useless.

Maybe I push back on that notion because I'm a former professional photojournalist and did a lot of image work in that role.

 

[chuckdee]

Maybe I push back on that notion because I'm a former professional photojournalist and did a lot of image work in that role.

And that's anecdotal based on your own experiences and abilities. What's that old saying about underestimating the limits of human stupidity? I think that applies in this case. Not exactly stupidity, but perceptions.