I read about the new age check nonsense just before 26.4 downloaded, fortunately. I turned off automatic updates and so I guess I have a little time to get out of the apple ecosystem. I'm thinking GrapheneOS on Pixel 10. This is absolutely not required by UK law, apple just seems to enjoy the taste of government boot.
I am required to maximise my use of AI at work and so I do. It's good enough at simple, common stuff. Throw up a web page, write some python, munge some data in C++, all great as long as the scale is small. If I'm working on anything cutting edge or niche (which I usually am) then it makes a huge mess and wastes my time. If you have a really big code base in the ~50million loc range then it makes a huge mess.
I really liked writing code, so this is all a big negative for me. I genuinely think we have built a really bad thing, that will take away jobs that people love and leave nothing but mediocrity. This thing is going to make the human race dumber and it's going to hold us back.
I work at a company that maintains one of the largest Rails codebases in the world (their claim, but believable). My experience has been the opposite - Claude and Cursor have done a wonderful job of helping me understand the implement new features in this gigantic codebase. I actually found out through AI that while I enjoy writing code, I enjoy building great software better, the coding was just a means to the end.
if you open up the pdf it actually says written with AI...and author's 2 decades of experience with creative coding. i feel like it's a pretty fair disclaimer
I used AI to do a lot of stress testing and to see what patterns fall out of the setting rule I wrote. Helped a lot with grammar checking and general editing. Brainstorming too.
When you write enough materials, the AI generated output started becoming less generic and actually interesting. Really cool. Still wouldn't use the generated output. The ideas, yes, but not the words.
I write every single word. It's not a shortcut by any means. Just means that your work can be narratively and technically more rigorous. Using AI to generate stories for you defeat the purpose.
If it didn't take you at least an hour to create something worthwhile, it's likely that you generated slop.
In the author's defense, I just read a chapter, and it doesn't feel like AI slop. I think they were just being brutally transparent with disclaimers. The author has "two decades of experience teaching creative coding".
Also the book is beautifully designed. Clearly a lot of effort and taste was put into it (as you'd expect from a Creative Coding book).
I'm not the target audience, but if this work was only possible because of AI, I'd say this is a win for the world.
Full disclaimer from the pdf:
> AI ASSISTANCE
> This book was created through an extended collaboration between the author, Claude (Anthropic), and ChatGPT (OpenAI). The structure, pedagogical framework, and frustrations catalog emerged from the author’s two decades of teaching creative coding. AI served as writing partner, generating draft content based on detailed prompts while the author provided direction, critique, iteration, and editorial control. AI was also used to generate specific images. All teaching insights, personal anecdotes, and educational philosophy originate from the author’s experience.
If an AI can license-wash open source software like this then the licenses become meaningless. Which is fascinating. Commercial software cloning that is simple enough for an average person to drive is next and the ultimate form of piracy, see an app for $10? Don’t fancy paying? Just ask ChatGPT for a clone. Future is going to be wild.
I take your point, but if the re-implementation looks the same, I would say it’s a form of copying. (Which I don’t think is a problem, I don’t think you should be able to own sequences of numbers.)
I don’t think there is much short term danger from the cookies. It’s more the principle of the thing. I hate the bullshit language of how we and our 1500 partners respect your privacy choices. They don’t respect anything and would sell their own grandmothers for a dollar.
Similar. I want to see games made by humans who have put in the effort and taken the time to build something good. I don’t want to see the market flooded with low effort AI slop.
Call it whatever you want, the game wouldn't exist without them doing something about it. And because they did something about achieving their vision other people get to play the game.
How about we just call these people the game Producers instead. Thats what a producer does anyway right? They make decisions of how the game is built, what goes into it, ect, ect, ect.
What if you get someone else to program it? By this logic, Edmund McMillen (Super Meat Boy, Binding of Isaac, Mew-Genics) isn't a game developer, because he doesn't code.
Edmund McMillen isn't a game developer per se. As listed in his Wikipedia profile, he's a game designer and artist. He still did that work, though, and human beings still wrote that code. The end result is still an expression in part of his unique talent and creative process.
He could still be called a game developer in a general sense because "game development" doesn't have to explicitly refer to programming, as the game development process is multidisciplinary and multifaceted. But of course the dichotomy here isn't between "did this person or that person write the code" but rather "does a human who uses a machine to generate content deserve the same credit as a human who puts in skill and effort and does the work?"
Arguments equating the use of AI to using a compiler or photoshop or other tools fall flat because if those were equivalent no one would be using AI, the tools allow greater control and are less expensive. The entire use case of AI is that it replicates the creative process, not that it acts as a tool to facilitate that process for a human. AI can create assets and code that a person doesn't understand, and wouldn't be capable of replicating themselves, which wouldn't be the case using mere tools.
And yet AI people come up with these strained metaphors and false equivalences because they don't want to face up to the nature of what AI is, that it isn't liberating them from "gatekeepers" or freeing their creativity, it's commoditizing them and using them to generate content and putting them in a prison of their own device.
Oh please, just stop being silly. Being a game dev means you're building games which means you're thinking about the mechanics of the game and what makes something fun to play. The programming is not "game dev" and offloading it to an AI agent doesn't make someone any less of a game dev.
Totally! I'm sick of not being able to see what tools they use. In fact, I feel that we should also start tagging devs that use an IDE instead of properly coding games in notepad.
reply