This thread is depressing. I am always sad to find out how widespread AI usage is still even. You can live your life with so little AI usage and should. Programmers have put so many industries in these tiny, fragile little bubbles.
I’m a musician and it ruined music for me because a lot of musicians are also “just using a little to alleviate the crunch” or whatever. It’s all manufactured consent to fund companies that were all jockeying for Trump money the last two years.
But now it supports the Trump military AND it’s ruined the market for digital artists.
the difference with programming is that it’s an evolution of existing tools there rather than something new. the image/video/audio generators are much worse from that aspect.
At least with EDM which is my favorite music to make it is all pretty downstream from each other if you know what I mean.
Software developments lead to new soft synth developments. I quit using FL studio because now you can just have it write melodies, parts, mix and master, I don’t use any of that stuff but FL is in my meta tags now and it becomes impossible to prove. I was trying to record all of my sessions to validate my work but I’m too broke and homeless for that. It’s all just not worth it anymore.
I could just make songs for myself and that is fun but I can do that on any DAW so why not one where I can share my work with confidence it’s made from reading, conversations and practice? Right now I use KORG on the switch and while it’s a bit slower I can make awesome songs on it. And the people I usually share my work with are happy to hear I’m not using AI supporting companies.
yeah i’ve had to throw away a few artists i found using “random mix” because i was able to hear the typical ai noise artifacts. the more “predictable” it is the easier it is to generate, so edm makes sense.
If it makes you feel any better, AI usage will plummet when those companies start charging more than it costs them to deliver it.
Not really, it’ll just mean everyone will be using Alibaba, z.ai and Deepseek models.
The laws of economics apply no matter which model it is. Right now, the costs to the end user are highly subsidized.
I can run models on my local machine that are maybe 90% as good as the latest and greatest for pennies of electricity. And with special methods can essentially run even the latest and greatest as long as I’m willing to wait a while for results or make some other special concession, still for pennies of electricity.
Next time I upgrade my PC will be pricey, but I use my PC for more than just AI inference and will inevitably upgrade, and at that point LLM’s will likely have plateaued in capability, at least for a while. And I’ll essentially be able to run it all… for pennies of electricity.
The law of economics will keep prices AI subscription prices low, because local inference will always be a cheap alternative even as RAM prices remain bloated.
Any subsidization is for the training. Not the inference. All that will happen is the money for improving models will dry up, but the usage of existing models will remain affordable to a mass of users. LLM slop is here to stay essentially forever.
“Don’t worry guys, the plagiarism machine currently burning the planet was only used sparingly”
The primary use case for House House’s use of LLMs was to research, via chatbots, issues we encountered with third-party code. If you’re technically-minded, and curious, here’s an example. We needed to cull shadow casters by distance from the camera, but Unity URP only allows culling shadow casters by distance in camera forwards, so shadow casters behind the player were being rendered at an infinite distance. This made our game run 50% slower for around 20 seconds at sunrise and sunset. We researched the problem extensively, and we looked at the URP code ourselves, but we couldn’t find a way. Then, we were able to speak directly to an engineer at Unity, who asked around and ultimately concluded that what we wanted wasn’t possible. Finally, we posed the question to an LLM chatbot. After a few dead ends, it suggested a possible fix, and while we had to modify the suggestion extensively, it worked. This fix represented about 10 lines of code inside URP.
asking a LLM for a fix that added about ten lines of code after heavily modifying the LLM output is exactly how AI should be used. They exhausted all other options and still had to tinker with the LLM code to make it work. if that’s not real coding, idk what real coding is anymore
for those that don’t approve of this, why? just curious, no hate 🙂
Because this site is filled with butthurt programmers lol
In this case, this AI usage in on the Unity team. House House is paying for Unity support, and got no help (wouldn’t be surprised if the help itself was also AI, but a different model), then had to rely on LLMs. It’s a systemic issue: game developers are relying on a small number of game engine vendors, that can push for enshittifying pretty easily without much repercussion.
Its a heresy, Adeptus Lemmingus forbids the abominable intelligence.
FOR THE OMNISSIAH
I’ve just started to ignore those “AI slop” parrots. There’s nothing you can say to them to change their minds similar to how a religious person believes their religion is the correct one.
Except the pro-sloppers are more akin to the religious nuts.
Horseshoe theory proven right, yet again.
How so?
Vehemently pro AI: You’re an idiot/luddite/snailcat if you don’t use AI for everything
Vehemently anti-AI: You’re an idiot/thief/anti-art if you use AI at all in any capacity
Nuanced middle ground hated by both: Some AI use is OK, vibing a whole game probably isn’t.
Mhm. Cann you succinctly explain what you think horseshoe theory is? Otherwise this just reads as enlightened centrism tbh.
enlightened centrism tbh.
Is an extremist dogwhistle.
No it isn’t, and that’s fascist as fuck to say. Fuck you
That’s the most enlightened centrist comment I’ve ever read.
Ok so you can’t explain what you mean.
Is an extremist dogwhistle.
From the pov of an enlightened centrist, I am sure it is.
imo, if llm usage is so slight or well thought that one couldnt detect it, i think at that point it could be ok. But if the llm used belongs to those big companies that are burning down the planet, then no amount is excusable. Its a tool, and if you can use it well enough it doesnt make the end product shitty then its good enough. Though even there the line is a line in water during storm. Whether llm usage is ok also comes to artistic integrity and that definitely cant be relied on when said artist can be fired for not doing as told. So better to err on the side of not using llm at all than risk it rotting something really important that cant be repaired.
As a developer, I really think the reactionary response to AI is muddying the waters. Their stated use-case seems perfectly reasonable, as their options were “shit optimization with even the unity devs clueless” or fixing the bug. AI makes a great tool for some applications. No, it should not be used to vibecode entire apps alone, but it does have the power to search and aggregate sources far, far better than humans can. It will likely take some tweaking afterwards, because their output must not be trusted, but using AI as a research tool for solving esoteric dev problems seems perfectly reasonable to me. I would much prefer we not punish the people that are fully disclosing their (very limited) use, when many of the competitors simply aren’t disclosing.
There are inherent problems with Ai, which makes any use of them regardless of what it is, problematic. Not everyone cares about the problems. Things like not respecting the license of training data, and other ethical reasons like Ai companies being responsible for the RAM and graphics cards shortage / price hikes.
If you ignore these problems, then we can have a talk about responsible usage and not doing slop. Regardless of what you think about Ai usage, I hope you at least understand and respect the opinion of those people too. Because its grounded with (good) reasons.
I would much prefer we not punish the people that are fully disclosing their (very limited) use, when many of the competitors simply aren’t disclosing.
They did not disclose the Ai usage on the Steam page.
Oh, absolutely. However, I also recognize that we live in an era where it’s impossible to have completely ethical consumption, and I suspect many of those most vocal against any AI use are generally being more selective towards this one topic. I personally don’t begrudge the (disclosed) use of the tech for applications where it is genuinely the best option available. The issues around training data and environmental concerns (even ignoring the effects of the economic bubble) are real and valid.
For the record, I do not use AI or support AI use, but I recognize that things are shifting and it will likely become a permanent tool. Hopefully the ethical issues will be ironed out before it’s too entrenched. I suspect once regulation is in place and the bubble pops, what survives will be much more sane.
also recognize that we live in an era where it’s impossible to have completely ethical consumption
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our best to strive towards that goal. And speaking up when you see something so incredibly unethical take over everything is like the least people can do.
I agree, but I also believe in picking your battles. I am vegetarian, but not vegan, despite desiring to be. I drive a gas car. I own personal electronics and clothing manufactured less than ideally or using components sourced from exploited communities in the global South. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t really stand by boycotting or shaming those that approach a complicated and ethically questionable technology in the most moral way possible. Anyone that works in development will tell you that AI is simply going to be a staple part of the industry going forward, because it enables developers to spend vastly less time on writing syntactically correct code and more time on design, bugfixing, etc. The AI industry is very unethical and unregulated right now, but it is also literally the only option to solve certain novel problems. I think the reactionary attitude towards any use of AI is unproductive. We should be focusing on the people putting out insecure, sloppy, vibe-coded garbage and don’t disclose their use, not the people using AI in the most minimal and appropriate applications who actually disclose it.
I personally believe it is impossible to have no ethical issues with Ai. Despite this fact, I experiment with local Ai chat tools. I used it when coding offline, to lookup ask some questions I would have asked a real user in example code snippets if it finds any issues I couldn’t see. Or how something is achieved usually, when I’m new to some stuff. That’s basically the extend of my usage in projects so far. Even if I wanted to slop more, I couldn’t, because my hardware is weak for this task (still don’t want to).
I like it for extracting text from images and translate it, generally speaking translation with Ai is much better, I play games where I know Ai was used to create it. As you see, I’m not completely against it.
But this is me personally, and I still have these ethical thoughts and it feels dirty.
Agree. I have been tinkering with local solutions, but nothing quite fits my use case. I have messed around with the latest DeepSeek model, and it seems quite powerful. Lower training cost and energy footprint is a plus, but still is fed by the same scraped content. I suspect the ability to write syntactically correct code and expand pseudocode will be the most useful feature of AI that persists post-bubble.
This is exactly why barely anyone discloses AI use anymore. I use AI sometimes, my colleagues use AI sometimes, everyone I know in the software industry uses Claude in some capacity. But we don’t talk about it in public because it’s become so toxic that you might as well replace a simple AI disclosure with “please witch hunt me and call months of my work vibecoded slop even if it clearly isn’t”
Most people are over AI being used in code but some people aren’t ready for it yet. I give it two years until it’s basically normalized.
Developers House House told Aftermath via email that “LLMs were used sparingly by House House to help work through difficult technical challenges and bugs”, and that they “estimate that well under 0.1% of Big Walk’s code had anything to do with this usage”.
Meh, if that were enough to exclude a game from GotY awards, you’d end up with a very short list of mostly unknown games, half of which probably did use LLMs for those sorts of tasks and are just lying about it.
And honestly, if AI-debugging can replace having to spend days of horrible crunchtime fixing those bugs, I’m all for it! That’s what AI should do, making people’s lives easier and not replacing their creativity.
I personally know indie devs who released successful games who again know other successful indie devs and all of them vibe code. Virtually every studio uses LLMs these days and most studios have been using it since last year. Most of them are not upfront about it either.
It’s like people are hearing the “everyone is doing it” refrain for the first time in their lives.
What a bad reason to justify anything.
I don‘t think they justify it that way. It‘s just the reality that you are competing against other studios who use everything they can get their hands on too. Developers are more lenient about that stuff in general because many of then copy/pasted stuff from Stackoverflow and the likes plenty times before. For them using a chatbot isn‘t that much of a difference.
The problem is that the rules in this game of capitalism are rigged to pit us against each other so we keep making egotistical, individual decisions. I think this is a prime example of that. It seems pragmatic to vibe code even when it makes things worse for everyone. Be it because AI causes mass layoffs or environmental destruction or because it funnels even more resources towards the overly rich.
I don‘t necessarily think the devs are at fault here. We need better rules and I think at least some of them would agree.
Then there is of course cuck coding or cuck development where you essentially tell Claude to take care of everything, including project management and assets while you take on the role of the „ideas“ guy (who usually never had an original idea in their life). That approach is messed up and I draw the line before that because nothing of value is created here. Just copies of copies of copies.
“Difficult technical challenges and bugs” is what I find AI is the worst at in my experience.
Considering their games have never used online multiplayer before, I’m guessing the bugs were to do with netcode, which is infamously tricky to get right, requires a huge amount of boilerplate and exception handling, but is mostly a solved problem; while being so tedious to debug and implement it causes programmers souls to leave their body. I think those are the kind of tasks LLMs are most suited for, actually
I think the example cases they’ve provided are pretty good example of where an LLM can actually be useful. For example, if you need to find and fix a bug in third-party code, it can be an absolute pain, as just getting a basic understanding of an unknown codebase by yourself could take days or weeks. An LLM can analyze the code in seconds and if not fix the bug, at the very least point out locations where to look for it. It’s not necessarily about telling the LLM to overcome the technical challenge by itself, but it can definitely assist in it.
You conveniently dropped “to help work through” here, so now it implies they let AI do the work.
Honestly this ordeal is actually bigger than people think. because it stems from the IGF written statement from 19 of their 50 or so jurors.
IGF has a decision to make here and it isn’t a easy one. They need to either choose whether the jurors are allowed to hold that opinion, which marks them as a pure bias source which is not good for a jury that is meant to decide the final choice on your listings; say “yea that’s fine” and basically throw out any form of credibility that IGF has in it’s voting process like how TGA has been for years, or just not put 19 of their jurors on any category that contains a game that has AI in it (which isn’t super difficult as a category only has 7-10 jurors)
Personally I think that IGF is in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t type situation here cause either one of them is going to screw their publicity.
this sounds like they used it as a search engine rather than as an assistant. it’s one of those weird gray areas that come up with how integrated it is now. like, if you try to find something with a search engine and you get the “ai result” thing, is that “ai use”? the tokens were used anyway, and you read it even if you then click a link.
i hope the otherwise great reception of big walk can help a bit with the debate here.
Sometimes it’s so funny to see you all type “well it’s a grey area” and then stretch it this way and that. But ofc, Gregory, all other areas of life are black or white, are they? Or just the ones you don’t understand?
Just here me out. What if all the whine and opinions and explanations all point toward a grey area because the entire thing is grey, because it’s a technology we “found” rather than created. There’s a reason most machine learning research is trying to understand what the actual fuck the thing is doing.
Yeah, it’s a search engine sometimes to you. Technically all image generations are too. They just search color patterns instead. If you make it talk to itself, suddenly it becomes a programmer. It’s a field that is just completely not possible to draw any borders or lines across, because we don’t understand what the fuck it’s doing
Everyone keeps trying to mansplain the process or the architecture, or algorithms involved, as if that explains it to them. But they are mistaken. It eludes all of humanity still. We have no clue whatsoever what makes it “search” (in your view) or “infer” or “predict” or “model” answers if we set it up to do so. If you can find out, i urge you to reach out to the researchers. We could all sleep a lot better if we could understand it and prevent sociopathic psychotic behaviors.
Coding with agents if you were a programmer before is a harrowing but also empowering, it’s just impossible to not use the ability to slow through boring parts of the work or scan massive amounts of data. It is just useful as fuck if you already knew what you were doing. If you didn’t, it’s just dangerous. But using it to code is not even close to using it for writing or other art. And that shit is the exact same technology.
Tldr: We don’t understand it. It’s no wonder we can’t say where the line goes because of that.
This is riddled with logical fallacies and none of these arguments hold. You should be ashamed.
it’s a compression algorithm, my guy. we don’t know why 7z picks the numbers it does for its tables either, but we damn well know how.
hooray, insane witch hunts and even more insane mental gymnastics galore!
(Big Walk is awesome and you should play it)
I’d challenge the AI purists by asking where they draw the line. What if your developer uses AI to create every single texture and mesh? What if the entire codebase was built with AI assistance? What if the developer used AI to fix one single gremlin of a bug? What if they create all of their regression tests with AI? What if the developer needed one single refresher on some basic C code syntax and got an AI summary from Google - where AI never touched the code? What if one of their imported python modules that is only called once has a developer who created one single unit test with AI?
Are all of these really equally heinous?
I draw the line at using it personally. I can’t control everyone else using it but I’ll gladly prioritize the work of someone who put the sweat in over one that simply prompted a model.
To me the AI use has become tantamount to endorsing and accepting the problems it is creating. Once we solve the problems it has created, I’ll feel fine using it again.
When it comes to the harms of these systems, that has a lot more to do with how these companies allow use of these tools…
The real harm is in these tools being pushed as learning tools, medical advice, companionship, etc. That they can even give medical advice seems like something Doctor’s Unions should be suing over, I can’t do it so why can the AI’s? Using these in learning situations is demonstrably doing the opposite, inducing cognitive offloading and dependency. The companionship thing is probably the most dangerous facet, it’s causing genuine psychosis in some people and honestly I feel that is by design.
None of this has to be for these tools to be used for coding. They represent a regulatory failure (complicity?) to constrain the dangerous uses.
Whereas I work with a small studio (<10 ppl) as the only programmer, asking Claude for bug hunting in regex’s and shader code has saved my behind a few times.
I’d argue there is a responsible way to use these tools. Letting an agent run amok in my project folder is a hard no; I ask about specific issues, providing generalized code, and insert and test the code by hand to ensure reliability. The amount of code inserted by an AI is zero, but the code written by AI would be <1% of my codebase.
I might use the tools for coding but I advocate locally to keep them out of schools, and support all efforts to limit the harms. You can use a tool for a useful purpose (hammer for a nail), while still restricting that tool’s usage (wielding a hammer to threaten people). So I disagree that using these tools is tantamount endorsing them for all purposes.
Frankly I’ve never paid any of them a dime, so I’m actually driving up their costs and hastening the decline 🤷
Nah, too many friends of mine have been fired because of “AI”. It’s the mothern cathedral, what the powerful are using to make us dependent on them. I can argue than even when you didn’t pay them a dime, you still gave them training material for the next model; furthering their goals ever so slightly.
I’m taking a stance that looks harsh on the outset, but it’s basically the only one that doesn’t further the massive theft of our body of work onto the hands of 5 oligarchs.
I’m fine with AI for things that it had already been used for in the past but hadn’t been called AI like code suggestions or randomization of existing textures for existence for blades of grass for example.
What I don’t like is asset generation of AI music, AI voice work, and AI art.
What about new ways of generating those things? Eg, I’ve been getting more into music theory and have been thinking that this seems like something that is automatable, but from the theory rather than training on existing music. Things like chord progression and harmonies to back up a simple melody, maybe even generation of a melody itself.
It’s just an idea but if I actually get around to making it and it works, and then I actually get around to making the game I want to make, I’d want to use it to generate the music. Hiring a composer would depend entirely on the quality of its output and the budget.
It wouldn’t be taking any existing works and making something out of them, but it also wouldn’t be paying composers and musicians to create music.
It’s probably purely hypothetical because I get a lot of ideas of things to try that never end up going anywhere, if they even get started, but what would you think of that in this kind of a context?
Hate it. There’s just somethings I like AI which are things humans aren’t good at such as assisting with decompilations and pointing out coding errors and optimization. Observing patterns in large data sets for science, etc.
I don’t like assisted writing from AI, and its something that is human and been done for centuries. Same with art and yes music too.
Has same energy as people making the same reasoning for not hiring artists and having AI generate art but pass it off like its still their creative output because they were telling the AI what they wanted done. I still see it as AI creation not human with the human not having been capable of it begin with. Which is why they used AI.
Its like tracing art then claiming you hand drew it.
While I wouldn’t consider myself an AI purist I do have different views when it comes to using AI for coding compared to using it for art or music.
I feel that expecting a game to be completely AI free when it comes to coding is pretty much an impossible task. Now matter how much you try at some point a developer will have to use a tool or library or whatever that were developed with the use of AI. Expecting them to audit everything they use would mean spending more time on that than coding the actual game or spending time developing non-AI alternatives. The genie is out of the bottle for coding and there’s no putting it back.
Now when it comes to art, music and music I personally am less accepting. AI has been trained on the art of millions of people around the world without their permission or offering them any compensation. That is unacceptable to me. It also feels very weird that people are trying to replace art with something generated by a machine, it feels soulless, each piece of human art no matter how simple has some meaning to the artist. AI just mashes it together with no rhyme or reason.
Now some people are going to say that I’m a hypocrite and coding AI has also been trained on the code of millions of people without them getting compensation or asking for approval. While that is true I think that for coding it’s different just for the simple fact that at the end of the day it’s just a set of instructions. There is code that could be considered art? I would say there definitely is but the vast majority of it is just telling the computer to do a thing in just slightly different ways. This is just how I see it and no doubt people are going to disagree.
I feel that expecting a game to be completely AI free when it comes to coding is pretty much an impossible task.
It’s so wild to see people making claims like this… People have been making video games for like 50 fucking years without AI. People can (and do) still make games without AI.
Don’t be absurd. Don’t project your own personal shortcomings onto everyone else in the world.
While I agree with the main message, I’ll be one to say you are a hypocrite. Code doesn’t have to be art for the use without consent to be wrong. Arguing that way is the same as when people say that using AI to generate images is fine because they have the idea but not the skills to execute it.
Either way you are diminishing someone’s else work because you find this tool useful to achieve the results you want.
They don’t have an Ai disclosure on the Steam page: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1478500/Big_Walk/ Isn’t this against Steams rules?
Edit: I don’t understand why people downvote a question. At the time I couldn’t find the rules searching the web, as no news article linked to it. So I asked here…
Why does this look like an asset flip? The character models themselves are just a bunch of basic shapes stuck together and the environment looks like it must’ve been off an asset store.
This from the studio that brought us untitled goose game, a beautifully styled game?
No, as per the article, the way they used AI does not require disclosure on the Steam page.
Where can I find the rules for Ai disclosure on Steam? I couldn’t find it.
It seems to mostly be in the developer portal, but here’s the news post about it.
This is the news from 2024, which I found too. I was looking for the actual rules a developer has to agree to. And the users need to know too, because we can report. Any news article talking about this has no link. It’s frustrating.
Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s on us. The devs have their forms to fill out, and they’ve disclosed this publicly of their own choice. If Valve found that usage to be in violation of their own policies, they’ve already got repercussions for this in place that House House would not want to be subject to.
Other developer information is online available for everyone too. So this is usually how Valve operates. I think I found it: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/gettingstarted/contentsurvey The part about the Ai disclosure is exactly the same as in the news article. I was just wondering if there is more to it. So its only about generative content then.
I have a lot of serious ethical concerns about AI and vibe coding. But I do recognize that there are legitimate use cases when used as a tool and not a crutch. And this one really don’t seem like the end of the world here.
My concern is that the takeaway from an incident like this is that next time, devs are just going to lie and not tell anyone they used AI. They didn’t have to say anything and no one would have ever known, but they’re being raked through the coals for responsible disclosure.
If I was a developer, I’d just lie.
If I was a developer, I’d just lie.
So it sounds like your “serious ethical concerns” aren’t quite so serious after all.
I think you are willfully misinterpreting me. AI is a nuanced issue, but I don’t have a problem with this type of use case. And these developers did the ethical thing in disclosing, but they’re in trouble for doing so.
My point is that excessive witch hunting gives developers strong incentive to white lie.
They lie anyways and don’t disclose anyways because it isn’t viewed positively as a whole.
Food companies don’t want to disclose all the ingredients they use and calories per serving, but are required to by law. That’s the direction things need to be headed.
All professional software development is using AI. This is normal and to be expected. Code AI contributions are rightfully handled differently in Steam’s AI disclosure.
Note how pretty much every major piece of software has gotten less reliable and less user friendly in the last few years. There might be a connection…
People have complained about this for as long as computers existed. It’s not a new development and not exclusive to LLM usage.
People have complained about this for as long as computers existed.
That. Doesn’t. Mean. It. Hasn’t. Gotten. Worse.
Actually comment for yourself instead of parroting thoughtless bullshit.
That wasn’t the implication. The comment above mine could be read in a way that suggests, declining software and systems quality has suddenly emerged from LLM usage. I was trying to highlight, that this has forever been thrown around as an anecdote. I hope, that someone reading my comment would think more thoroughly about their experience with software over the years and how their own perceptions and bias might have changed through that time.
There is, but it’s not AI alone. It’s mostly the C-Suite trying to drown us in it.
I forgot the golden role of “ai bad”.
AI is a tool. A useful tool for software development. But with any tool, it’s possible to misuse it. With AI it’s easy to abuse it and get it to write everything for you and not think about the output. That usually ends up with bad code. You can also use it for debugging or code review or giving a solution to a tough technical problem that can be used as a starting point. That’s how these devs used it. That is a good way to use the tool.
Just because corporations overuse AI in software development doesn’t mean the tool is bad.
it’s disappointing but i get it. these tools are meant to be alluring and addictive. i’d be lying if i said i didn’t give in to the temptation a few times, as much as i hate to admit it.
i still think it should be disqualifying for a game awards ceremony. if not, i worry that this could be used as a foot in the door by slopbros to further normalize ai use in games (and, in turn, elsewhere)
The primary use case for House House’s use of LLMs was to research, via chatbots, issues we encountered with third-party code. If you’re technically-minded, and curious, here’s an example. We needed to cull shadow casters by distance from the camera, but Unity URP only allows culling shadow casters by distance in camera forwards, so shadow casters behind the player were being rendered at an infinite distance. This made our game run 50% slower for around 20 seconds at sunrise and sunset. We researched the problem extensively, and we looked at the URP code ourselves, but we couldn’t find a way. Then, we were able to speak directly to an engineer at Unity, who asked around and ultimately concluded that what we wanted wasn’t possible. Finally, we posed the question to an LLM chatbot. After a few dead ends, it suggested a possible fix, and while we had to modify the suggestion extensively, it worked. This fix represented about 10 lines of code inside URP.
“Temptation” is one way to put it, I suppose, when the human experts tell you it’s impossible. This award’s criteria was already decided, and they’re entitled to their definition, but this is just information that was surfaced to them rather than work done for them.
Unity support devs saying things are impossible is like in fight club when they always say you can’t join.
They don’t really mean it. They just have other things to do.
I’m not sure this is a great policy. You can tell the difference between using ai for debugging and a whole game made of ai slop. Nobody in that second category will be just sneaking by unnoticed.
But using ai in the final stretch to squash some bugs, that’s pretty hard to notice from the outside. If you outlaw the use of ai entirely, what do you get? People still use it for the little things, but don’t admit to it. Is that better?
Here’s the statement from IGF jurors that’s related to this. (The link is likely a repost; I don’t think the person is affiliated with IGF.) This hardline, purist stance removes all nuance over when AI. The question shouldn’t be if AI should be used at all. It should be more about how it is used. Adopting this stance doesn’t mean developers are going to be suddenly honest. Some devs will be even without this stance, but many others will take time to hide or disguise their AI use. The part about coding especially bothers me, because AI can be very useful for debugging, but to them, based on this statement, any use of AI is the same as vibe coding a whole game.
It sounds fine. “Any AI use harms the environment and community creation. So we’ve decided to vote against it”
