The deliberate conflating of AI code and AI assets as equivalent in "AI declarations" is bad.

The author here however goes further, and claims their argument against AI code is so strong, that they'd lose brain cells by actually making the argument, so we just have to accept that as fact.

They then go on to suggest that using AI for bug fixing is terrible, and hints that people should feel ashamed for enjoying a game that has gone through that process.

▲

bennettnate5 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm neutral when it comes to others having ethical objections to any LLM use, but the author's claim that House House could have just hired an independent dev to find/fix the bug that they and Unity had both unsuccessfully searched for is downright absurd. Throwing someone, even a professional, into an unfamiliar codebase and asking them to take several days to diagnose a bug when you're late in the development/release cycle is not a recipe for success.

▲

vehementi 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The deliberate conflating of AI code and AI assets as equivalent in "AI declarations" is bad.

Agreed

> The author here however goes further, and claims their argument against AI code is so strong, that they'd lose brain cells by actually making the argument, so we just have to accept that as fact.

No it's just beyond the scope of their article to go into the explanation. In the game dev sphere this has already been discussed a lot. This is not this person's novel and unique opinion, even though it's pretty outside of what shows up on HN. The article is not there to convince you, it's reporting on a situation

> They then go on to suggest that using AI for bug fixing is terrible

In the context that they could have engaged an expert instead. I don't see a very strong line between doing that and using google / SO - maybe they think those avenues still had humans in the loop even if those sources themselves are rampant with ethical issues (plagiarism etc.)

▲

smashers1114 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your comment doesn't really say how you believe AI code and AI assets differ, but I assume you find AI code more palatable than AI assets. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think that's a common opinion that I see nowadays.

I think the issue I see with that stance is that frontier models can now perform asset generation via deterministic code. This is different than the 3D diffusion models of yesteryear. Is that manner of AI asset generation (which is really just through code generation) worse than other AI code in a project (i.e. resolving this bug)? If so, why? (I do not have good answers myself)

	▲	xnorswap 21 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think AI is useful and fine for non-creative work. I don't see programming as an especially creative work. It's about translating as best we can, the design into execution. There is a little more creativity the further up the architecture and design you go, but the lower level you go, the less creative it is. Indeed for decades we have handed off the mechanical conversion into machine code to deterministic compilers. Programming is certainly a skilled practice, but it isn't especially creative. Given the same problem, many programmers would produce a similar output. This is very different to creative work, where the same requirements can lead to vastly different results. The range of art that could be described, as "Draw me the night's sky" is immense. Generating assets, be that genAI, or procGen, takes away from the creative, and doubly so if you don't have much of a filter on the output and just accept what is given. Look at procGen: the worlds of No Man's Sky have no soul to them. Compare that to the much lower and less detailed lands of Azeroth, which had so much soul that we're still recreating and enjoying them 20+ years later. Generative AI can trick us into thinking there is a soul and that something creative has happened when it hasn't. Programming has no such deception. If you're working with generation but then hand-filtering a million results back down to a hand-picked few, then there is a creative process once again, a curation that is itself an artistic process, so these things aren't absolute, there are always grey areas all over.
	▲	rcxdude 21 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Tbh I think it's entirely based in the perception of the relative privilege of artists and programmers. Programming is viewed as a high-paying, easy to get job, so replacing their labor is less objectionable than replacing the labor of artists, which generally have lower-paying jobs and have to work relatively harder to get them.

▲

goodmythical 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do think there is at least one compelling argument here which is for the competition having an actual rule or having judges declare their positions ahead of time, would help creators decide whether or not to enter.

I'd be pissed if I entered a contest (and asking for a refund if I paid to enter as this criteria was not disclosed) thinking that I was allowed to make the best game I could make regardless of tech used, only to find out that my max possible score was 66% because shadow judges were biased against me.

It feels like the old reddit moderator meme where the rules are made up and the points don't matter because all it takes is one salty mod.

▲

21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]