Big mistake. Its so easy to build out an engine and editor tools with AI now, you could easily surpass godots feature set (for your game) in a week with Claude. With the advantage of it being leaner and easier for agents to navigate. You can see this with the explosion for vibe coded three.js games, AI is really good at building with a leaner framework.

If that were the case, I think we would have already seen a turbocharged AI fork of Godot by now.

Or, if the machine-generated programming is that good, it shouldn’t be prohibitively difficult to surpass the handwritten version.

Let's take a moment to put the AI psychosis down and think through your comment:

1. AI is so good that you can get your game working to your vision in a matter of weeks without needing to depend on godot

2. Godot is making a mistake refusing AI contributions

How exactly is godot making a mistake, if AI is so good that godot is defunct anyway?

>you could easily surpass godots feature set (for your game) in a week with Claude.

Are you a graphics programmer/ game engine developer by chance? Because I am, and this is one of the most insane statements I've ever heard.

In my day job, I work on a closed source 3D engine. It's certainly no Godot, yet our codebase is still over ~400k lines of code, and I would bet my entire lifes savings that a neophyte using Claude/Codex wouldn't be able to replicate our engine in a years time, let alone a week. Hell, I'm not sure an expert would be able to replicate our engines functionality in a year.

Point being: game engine development is possibly one of hardest niches in software, and nobody is going to vibe code a replacement for the largest open source game engine in a fucking week.