Twitter was great and I think anyone who thinks otherwise either curated it to be awful or didn't really use it at all. Your Twitter experience was defined by who you followed. There was sports Twitter, political Twitter, science Twitter, weird Twitter...there were thousands of different spheres to put yourself in.
If you followed political accounts...yeah you set yourself up for a toxic experience. But I followed funny people so my experience was great. A seemingly endless series of one liners, comics, and weird observations.
That's pretty much Vaudeville. The only things you can do is click on locations and talk to people, each of whom has some bit of information you need to figure out.
It's basically an experiment to see what works and what doesn't with the idea. I appreciate that they kept the scope small (no quests, no WASD movement) and have been implementing changes as they discover the shortfalls (like the ones I've mentioned). If it ever does get released as a finished game, it'll be more like a proof of concept for other games to build off of.
Ever seen the game Vaudeville? It's a fairly basic detective game but all the characters have their own LLM and AI voices. I bought it for the reason you described. I just had to see the technology in action and I can definitely see a future with generative text/voices in games.
It's not perfect by any means but I think it's a very cool approach to a detective game. There have been updates to it since I played that address most of the problems I had with it like characters forgetting past conversations and giving conflicting info.
Unless you want to push back (clearly you don't), I wouldn't even acknowledge the topic or what about the topic makes you uncomfortable
"Hey man, this is a bar conversation. I don't feel comfortable talking about stuff like this at work."
I work in the same office as my best friend and I've told him similar - even though our politics are very closely aligned. Yes, I agree it would be funny if Trump shit his pants when he falls asleep in court. But I don't want people to hear us talking about that
This is a blog post from the guy who created the "study"
I read the study and it makes a hell of a lot of assumptions without really proving anything. I'm inclined to think the author worked backwards from his preconceived conclusion. It's not very convincing.