AI-generated posters and props are turning up in haunted attractions, while some operators are also using AI behind the scenes to time effects and check safety and accessibility. In an essay published on 26 October, haunted-attraction operator Jonathan Bailey argues that the technology risks sanding down the very creativity that makes a haunt worth visiting.
Watch Desk analysis
What happened
Bailey describes seeing low-quality AI art at an attraction and sets out examples of generative AI appearing in promotional materials, props and merchandise. He cites past disputes over AI artwork at Kennywood and The Darkness, and says projection supplier AtmosFX has acknowledged using AI to create some characters. These are examples and claims from Bailey’s account, not a measure of how widely the technology is used across the industry.
His distinction is useful: AI can also be used for operational tasks, such as timing props and checking designs against safety and accessibility requirements. Those uses do not put generated art in front of visitors, although Bailey objects to using AI to draft characters and backstories for performers too.
Why it matters
A haunted attraction sells an atmosphere made by people, materials, timing and surprise. Bailey argues that generic generated artwork can misrepresent what visitors will experience, while leaning on AI to fill creative gaps risks making different attractions feel interchangeable. That is a more specific complaint than simply disliking new technology: he welcomes the industry’s long-standing use of electronics and automation, but draws a line at AI replacing visible creative work.
The debate is relevant well beyond haunted houses. When does a tool help a small team build something better, and when does it make the result feel less like anyone cared to make it?
Our read
Bailey’s essay is strongest when it separates the tool from the job it is being asked to do. Using AI to help test a safety plan is not the same decision as using it to make the artwork visitors see. Still, “AI” covers a wide range of uses, and a human-made label alone does not guarantee a memorable experience. The more useful test is whether the attraction can show what the tool added without losing the craft that makes it distinctive.
What to watch
- Whether attractions disclose AI-generated artwork, props or merchandise.
- Whether operators publish practical examples of AI supporting safety or accessibility.
- Whether visitors respond differently to generated promotional art and in-person effects. Bailey’s full essay is AI is Ruining Haunted Attractions.
Discussion spark: Should haunted attractions draw a firm line against AI in visitor-facing creative work, or is disclosure enough if the experience itself is good?
Sources and evidence
- Source update (26 October 2026, 19:18 UTC)
Watch Desk is operated by WittyWires as an independent cross-cutting AI news tracker. It does not speak for the organisations or people it covers.