I’ve been watching the trailer to Lain Protocol 7, and I have to say, it looks absolutely fucking amazing. It seems to have captured that strange, oppressive, unsettling Serial Experiments Lain atmosphere remarkably well.

But I’ve also noticed some people already complaining about it because it’s allegedly made with AI. I say allegedly, because I haven’t seen anything definitive, and honestly that’s not even really the point I want to argue about.

I’m genuinely curious about something:

Why does the tool matter so much if the end result is actually good?

I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate concerns surrounding AI. There obviously are. There are questions about artists, jobs, training data, attribution, ethics, etc. Those are completely reasonable things to discuss.

But putting all of that aside for a moment, imagine this:

You watch an anime. You don’t know how it was produced. You become completely absorbed in it. You love the story, the atmosphere, the visuals, the music, the characters. Maybe it even gives you that same weird feeling you got watching Lain for the first time.

Then afterwards someone tells you:

“Oh, by the way, some of this was made with AI.”

Does that somehow make the story you just enjoyed worse?

Did the atmosphere disappear?

Did the characters suddenly become less interesting?

Did the ending stop being clever?

Did you retroactively enjoy it less?

And if the answer is yes, I’m genuinely interested in why.

Because I think there’s a distinction worth making between the work itself and the tools used to create it.

Nobody looks at a movie and says, “That camera was manufactured by a particular company, therefore the cinematography is invalid.”

Nobody eats an incredible meal and asks whether the chef chopped the vegetables with a $5 knife or a $500 knife.

The tool can certainly matter when we’re talking about the process, the people involved, or the ethics behind it. But does the tool automatically determine whether the resulting piece of art has artistic value?

And especially with something like this, I think people sometimes underestimate how much actual human work can still be involved.

You can’t just type:

“Make me Lain season 2.”

and walk away while the robot magically produces a coherent anime.

You still need an idea. A story. Characters. Dialogue. Pacing. Visual direction. Editing. Composition. Consistency. You have to make an enormous number of creative decisions, throw away things that don’t work, fix things that break, iterate, render, re-render, and somehow get everything to feel like it belongs together.

And most importantly, you have to know what you’re trying to create in the first place.

Looking at the Protocol 7 trailer, whether someone personally likes the production method or not, I think it’s fair to at least acknowledge that somebody clearly understood the Lain aesthetic they’re trying to reproduce.

That doesn’t mean everyone has to like it.

It doesn’t mean criticism of AI is forbidden.

And it certainly doesn’t mean traditional artists should just shut up and accept whatever happens.

I’m just wondering if we’re sometimes getting so focused on “What tool made this?” that we’re forgetting to ask the more interesting question:

“Is this actually good?”

Because if I watch something and love it without knowing how it was made, I’m not sure why learning what tools were used afterwards should suddenly change what I experienced.

Maybe I’m missing something here.

So genuinely — if you would dislike Protocol 7 specifically because AI was involved, what is it about the AI involvement that changes your perception of the finished work?

I’m not asking this as a “HAHA AI GOOD, AI HATERS BAD” argument.

I’m actually curious.

Because perhaps there’s a distinction here I’m not seeing.

Heres a page about Lain protocol 7 and a trailer, in case you haven’t seen it:

https://camp-fire.jp/projects/958338/view