Some awards show controversy had House House disclose possibly the lightest possible LLM usage you can imagine. Anyway it's a Bad Game now.

Amongst all the glut of genuinely vibe coded slop, inventive AI reverse engineering and the plain ol' realities of LLM living in modern software development, I get a bit frustrated seeing it all grouped into one essentialized category.

The common understanding of what AI even is, is at an all-time low, imo. People see 'AI code' next to a game title and imagine someone prompting claude for 20 minutes, and these sorts of stories and over-the-top reactions don't help.

The basics of what happened with this story, is that a particularly bad Unity bug plagued the team and the unity support wasn't being a help. LLM fixed the bug. I'm shocked to see that even this usage is considered unacceptable to some people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

I'm in the "professional with a powerful new tool" category, using copilot in an IDE on a work project for the first time.

Been messing with code for over 10 years but never in a professional capacity and it's been helpful for quickly getting me up to speed with unfamiliar libraries or languages, or HW interfaces. I'd be fine giving it up tho.

It's an undeniably powerful tool with genuinely impressive capabilities. Because of this I'm convinced that a zero tolerance policy is a losing proposition long term in terms of popular support.

But it's also an open question what the real cost of operating these things is in the long term is. We're still in the bubble with huge amounts of capital going around to make these available for use below their actual cost. It's likely many would not fine it worth using if presented with its unsubsidized cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 hours ago

    Because of this I'm convinced that a zero tolerance policy is a losing proposition long term in terms of popular support.

    i think this is also a big one. any reasonably informed historical perspective has to contend with the 50 movements against automation over the past 2 centuries and how they have all near universally failed. theres plenty of blame not due to those within these movements, but at some point you have to contend that "harassing those who use a technology to force it to recede" is not a viable strategy given the conditions at hand. and given the average argument actively reifies intellectual property or goes on about True Art and The Human Soul, i dont think this will amount to much either.

  • source
  • parent