AI is here and it trivializes what used to be hard.
Developing software used to require feats of skill and endurance, and we're used to judging software based on that. Now it doesn't.
We will have to get used to judging software based on the output not on the input. Whether what was made is unique, interesting, creative, not whether it took a lot of time or knowledge.
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.
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.
I think I agree with you, but the effort to "judge it like any low-effort crap" is now beyond anything I can muster. I think when people say "ban" the often mean filter with such an aggressive heuristic that I never see it, which IS one way to judge...
Eventually we'll get over having this discussion.
AI is here and it trivializes what used to be hard. Developing software used to require feats of skill and endurance, and we're used to judging software based on that. Now it doesn't.
We will have to get used to judging software based on the output not on the input. Whether what was made is unique, interesting, creative, not whether it took a lot of time or knowledge.
There is no going back, only forward.
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.
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.
Banning AI is stupid and settled science - ban gravity, debt, the sun, electricity.
Ban slop.
Or better yet, don't "ban" anything - judge it like any low-effort crap.
I think I agree with you, but the effort to "judge it like any low-effort crap" is now beyond anything I can muster. I think when people say "ban" the often mean filter with such an aggressive heuristic that I never see it, which IS one way to judge...
On mobile the text is so large I feel like I’m giving my thumb a workout to scroll