An AI wrote a workplace sitcom. A critic watched it so you don't have to.

Key points

• No Big Deal, a sitcom written entirely by AI, premiered on YouTube in 2025 to an audience of fewer than 376 viewers at the time of review.
• The Guardian's critic called the show unwatchable, describing its characters as "dead-eyed waxworks" with dialogue carrying the nuance of a satnav.
• One Anthropic researcher (Anthropic makes the Claude AI assistant) has estimated a greater than one-in-ten chance that AI poses an existential risk to humanity within the next decade.
• The review suggests the real danger may be subtler: not destruction, but an endless supply of content that's technically coherent and completely soulless.

---

A sitcom called No Big Deal landed on YouTube last Friday. It was made by AI. By one account, it's genuinely painful to sit through.

The Guardian's critic watched it as viewer number 376. They didn't recommend that anyone become number 377.

The characters speak, the review says, with the warmth and timing of a navigation system reading out a postcode. Every beat lands slightly wrong. Jokes arrive and depart without incident. The human cast can't rescue material that was never really material to begin with.

Does this tell us anything real about AI and creativity?

Yes, and it's not flattering. What No Big Deal seems to demonstrate is the gap between competence and craft.

AI writing tools have become genuinely good at producing sentences that are grammatically sound, structurally familiar, free of obvious errors, and almost entirely devoid of surprise. What they haven't cracked is the thing that makes a sitcom land: the microsecond of timing, the character detail that feels lived-in, the joke that works because it was slightly wrong in exactly the right way.

Comedy is arguably the hardest form to fake. Drama can coast on plot. Comedy needs the audience to trust the storyteller, and that trust is built on a thousand small signals that a person was behind the wheel.

The Anthropic statistic the critic references is real. One researcher placed the probability of AI causing civilisation-scale harm at above ten percent within a decade. The review deploys it as a dark joke: maybe boredom is the mechanism.

Separating those two concerns is actually worth doing. AI as an existential risk is a serious debate among researchers. Cheap, passable-looking AI content that crowds out thoughtful work is a more immediate problem, and already visible. No Big Deal is probably evidence for the second concern, not the first. Our reporting on AI-generated content from 14 September found that fiction production through AI is already far more common than most of the industry has absorbed.

What does this mean for people who watch, make or commission TV?

For viewers, nothing forces you to watch AI-generated content, and the signals that something was machine-made are, for now, fairly obvious.

Writers get a data point here. Producing a script isn't the same as producing something worth watching. The tools can do the former; a person still needs to do the latter.

For commissioners and platforms, the economics are the uncomfortable part. AI-generated content is cheap. If audiences accept cheap-and-watchable, the pressure on budgets for expensive-and-good will grow. A show that 376 people watched and one person reviewed isn't a crisis. A thousand shows like it might look different.

The critic's verdict, delivered with some venom: AI hasn't learned to be funny. It's learned to produce the shape of funny. Those aren't the same thing.

Common questions

Is all AI-generated TV this bad?

Not necessarily. Short-form experiments and heavily human-edited AI drafts have produced more mixed results. A full sitcom handed end-to-end to an AI system, with minimal human creative control, is a harder ask, and No Big Deal suggests the results show it.

Could a better AI model fix the problem?

Larger, newer models write more fluent dialogue, but fluency isn't comic timing or character depth. Researchers working on creative AI acknowledge that humour and emotional authenticity remain genuinely difficult problems, not simply a matter of scale.