What have they really done wrong here? The solution could have been delivered by Unity support eventually and it would likely be the same fix. They could have accidentally been presented snippets of code simply googling aspects of the bug, because google search automatically runs your search through their AI. They also could have not engaged with the LLM and shipped the game with the bug intact, or made other concessions, and the end result would have been lesser.

I am asking this in good faith despite how opinionated I already seem about it. I just don't 'get' the thought process and why we would expect a rational human being to behave differently in this situation. Solidarity and all that, yeah - but it's not like they're enthusiastic AI developers. They claim AI was used in no other part of development and what they produced was one of the most human and expressive video games out there.

So from where I'm standing, such resolute opposition just feels dogmatic, without really considering the current realities of software development. I'm half-way between 'this is an appropriate use of the technology, and surrounding market dynamics are the problem' and 'good boy developers get a little LLM as a treat'

and really the problem here isnt that they used ai. its that something they liked used ai, so its corrupted now. and they are a worse person for liking it because materialism isnt real and everything is based on morality, and if you have ever seen the claude logo you are ruined forever and we have to kill you.

I think this is poignant because Big Walk isn't just some run-of-the-mill popular indie game. It resonated heavily with a lot of people and built a very unique experience all around human connection. It's as 'art' as 'artsy games' can get and I think people feel the need to overcorrect when exceptions to the "AI is antithetical to art" appear.

Although that is being very charitable to the controversy, because of/c AI didn't have a hand in the formation of that experience, just the debugging process of development. Still as you say this is enough to taint the project and you can see it reflected in some of the commentary, ie, 'how can we trust that they didn't use AI in other parts of development?' As if they are somehow fundamentally worse now than they were before, even though you still don't really know anything about them on a personal level.

I don't disagree with the critique of the technology, though I think the realities of it are a lot less poetic. Under current property dynamics it's almost purely an extractive technology that has more or less stolen collective productivity and turned it into a slop machine, but the thing still exists and is capable of production. This is less of a 'cats out of the bag' appeal and more 'we're going to have to seize control of this technology just like everything else' line.

To that end, when I imagine an ideal possible scenario where this technology now has to exist alongside fundamentally different market dynamics, I have to imagine the application of local models in specialized fields would be one of the ways it sticks around.

And, I think, it will stick around - we have to meet people where they are at a certain point, and software devs range from vibe code addicts to professionals indulging in a powerful new tool. None of them want to give it up, I don't think.

Is debugging really an artistic endeavor?

Yes I do agree that an ideal scenario is local models tailored only for software development and used only by software developers, and I think that'd be the future of the technology in any just society. I don't know if the lines are fully drawn in the sand under our current market dynamics, though. From what I've seen the application of the LLM in the above story is almost standardized now, as in you could accidentally generate the solution to your problem by just Googling. I haven't spoken with someone in programming that hasn't remarked that it's everywhere in the workplace and I haven't seen a git project without a claude contribution in ages.

Lots of people are vocal about their stance on AI in development, but we're not seeing those principles in practice.

Am I too delusional to hope for OK performance if I got this running on the steam deck? Have to see if Fritchii even has a linux build first, but playing switch games on the deck just hits right.

boys were training for the day the conscript office comes knocking

Ah yes, the three biggest problems in the world right now. AI's profitability, Elon Musk, and NVIDIA.

No surprises all three of these are toy and treat adjacent, which is naturally of extreme concern to these jokesters.

The jump in the technology on display with San Andreas was pretty crazy, though. Shit was released like, two years after Vice City, which itself was only a year after GTA 3. Vice City and GTA 3 look very cozy together and are extremely similar in scope. Vice CIty has 'expansion pack' vibes to it. San Andreas is 4 times larger, has double the amount of vehicles, and several entirely new subsystems like the player stats and the gang wars etc etc

San Andreas, next to Vice City, looks like it's from a different generation, almost. Compare to the discourse around 6, and a lot of people are saying it looks a whole lot like 5.

Oh and an edit after posting, San Andreas was made by a grand total of 80 dudes whereas GTA VI is estimated to involve over 6,000 hands.

Oh shit that's pretty clutch. The verification tick being useless was the hardest sell of the steam deck by far.

Trump won, the communes grow stronger. This was Chairman Trumps goal and his 4D chess cannot be easily understood (in this timeline)

Yes absolutely. A lot is going to suck but at least some madman ported Tony Hawk skateboarding physics into New Vegas.