The debate around artificial intelligence in online casino often begins with a simple question: can an AI dealer replace a human dealer? Edvardas Sadovskis, CEO at Iconic21, argues that this starting point creates the wrong comparison. His view is that an AI-powered dealer does not need to imitate a live casino host closely enough to compete with a real person. Instead, the technology can be used to add a new layer of personality and interaction to games that have traditionally been played alone.
For Sadovskis, that distinction matters because live casino and RNG casino products solve different problems. A live table is built around a real dealer, a studio and a camera feed. The social environment is part of the product itself. An RNG blackjack game is different. It is designed around software-driven outcomes, familiar animations and a faster digital rhythm. Iconic21’s approach keeps that underlying RNG structure intact and changes what surrounds it.
AI does not need to win a contest against a human dealer
Sadovskis says skepticism is understandable if the objective is to recreate a human dealer as closely as possible. The more realistic an artificial host becomes, the more directly players compare it with a real person. At that point, the benchmark is no longer another piece of software. It is the natural reactions, imperfections and social presence of a human being, which is a much more demanding standard.
That is why Iconic21 deliberately avoided a photo-realistic presentation. Its AI-powered dealer is meant to look artificial. There is no attempt to hide what the player is interacting with, and the company sees that transparency as an important part of the concept. The dealer belongs to a digital game, so the visual language reflects that rather than trying to create the impression of a live studio.
The second decision was equally important: place the AI dealer inside RNG products rather than treat it as a substitute for a live table. In practice, the blackjack game remains RNG blackjack. There is no human dealer behind a camera, no physical table and no live broadcast. The rules, game pace and basic animations remain what an RNG player would expect. The difference is that the player now has an interactive presence on the other side of the table.
Adding a social layer to a traditionally solitary product
The idea raises a broader question about how digital casino games have developed. For decades, most RNG games have been solitary experiences by default. A player loads a game, interacts with the interface and receives outcomes from the software. There may be sound, animation and themed characters, but there is usually no conversational layer.
Sadovskis questions whether that silence has always been a genuine player preference. It may simply be the format the industry offered. If the only available version of RNG blackjack is a quiet digital table, then players who choose RNG have not necessarily made an active decision to avoid interaction. They may simply prefer the speed, convenience or structure of RNG while still being open to a more social experience.
That is where Iconic21 sees a separate category emerging. The company is not trying to turn RNG blackjack into live casino. It is trying to make RNG feel less isolated without changing the fundamental product. In Sadovskis’ description, the AI dealer gives the game a personality it did not previously have.
Why transparency changes the interaction
One of the more interesting observations from Iconic21’s own tables is the way players interact with the artificial dealer. Sadovskis says users ask questions, make jokes and start conversations that would sometimes feel unusual in a traditional live-casino environment. His explanation is that an openly artificial character carries fewer social expectations.
A human dealer creates a real social situation. Some players enjoy that, but others may feel more self-conscious about what they say or how often they interact. An AI dealer changes that dynamic. The user knows there is no person on the other side judging the conversation, while the presence of a responsive character still gives the table a sense of company.
Sadovskis is careful not to present those observations as universal truths about casino players. He describes them as patterns seen on Iconic21’s own tables. That qualification is important. The product is still relatively new, and the long-term value of the idea will depend on whether players continue to use the interaction after the novelty fades.
RNG and live casino should not be treated as the same experience
The category argument also changes how operators might compare performance. If an AI dealer is evaluated only against a live dealer, it will be judged on realism, natural conversation and the ability to reproduce a human-led table. That can obscure the more relevant comparison: whether an AI layer makes an RNG product more engaging than the same RNG product without one.
Live casino already has clear strengths. It brings human presence, trust, social dynamics and the feeling of a shared table. AI does not need to displace those qualities to be useful elsewhere. A player can still choose live blackjack when a genuine dealer is part of the reason for playing, while another player can choose RNG blackjack with an artificial host because the combination suits a different mood or playing style.
Seen that way, the technology is additive rather than substitutive. It creates another option between a silent digital interface and a full live studio. The underlying casino game remains familiar, but the presentation becomes more responsive and conversational.
The real test is repeat use, not novelty
The idea still has obvious questions around it. Sadovskis notes that it is early and that long-term success will depend on factors such as whether players keep coming back. A new interface can attract attention when it first appears, but sustainable value requires more than curiosity. The interaction has to remain useful, entertaining or comfortable after the first few sessions.
That makes player retention a more meaningful signal than a short burst of interest. If users continue choosing an AI-assisted RNG table when a standard version is also available, the case for a distinct category becomes stronger. If the feature is used once and ignored, the technology may remain little more than presentation.
There are also open questions about how much personality an artificial dealer should have, how frequently it should speak and when interaction becomes distracting. An RNG game is often chosen partly because it is direct and efficient. Adding conversation only works if the social layer supports that experience instead of slowing it down or making it feel forced.
A different way to think about AI in casino products
Sadovskis’ central argument is ultimately about product design rather than a contest between humans and machines. AI is often discussed through the language of replacement because that is the most obvious way to measure it. In live casino, however, replacing a skilled human dealer is not necessarily the most interesting use of the technology.
A more useful question may be what AI can add to products that did not previously have a social component at all. RNG tables have long existed without a person on the other side. Giving those games an interactive character changes the experience without requiring the operator to rebuild them as live products.
That approach also avoids pretending that artificial and human interaction are identical. The AI dealer looks artificial, operates inside an RNG environment and is presented honestly as software. The value, if players find one, comes from that combination rather than from deception.
For operators and suppliers, the concept opens a broader design discussion. AI can be treated as a tool for producing cheaper versions of existing experiences, but it can also be used to create formats that were not practical before. Iconic21’s experiment sits in the second camp. The company is testing whether a game that remains unmistakably RNG can still feel more personal and less solitary.
The absence of a studio and camera feed is also more than a technical detail. It means the product does not inherit all of the practical conventions of a live table. An RNG game can preserve its familiar timing and animation while the artificial dealer is used only as an interaction layer. That separation is what allows the concept to remain recognisably digital instead of becoming a cheaper imitation of live casino.
For operators, the practical evaluation is therefore broader than asking whether the dealer looks realistic. They can look at whether players engage with it, whether conversations feel natural, whether the feature changes repeat use and whether the extra personality improves an RNG session without becoming intrusive. Those are product questions rather than replacement questions, and they fit Sadovskis’ argument much more closely.
The debate may therefore be less about whether AI will replace live dealers and more about whether online casino has room for an additional type of experience. Human-led tables can continue to serve players who value authentic social interaction, while AI-assisted RNG products test a different proposition. Sadovskis’ position is that the industry should judge that proposition on its own terms rather than forcing it into a comparison it was never designed to win.