Yeah I mean, that sounds reasonable. There is a big difference between generating all your game assets with AI and using Claude to refactor methods and write docs.
Big difference but I would argue both require disclosure because I will opt out of any of it. Add it to the long list of bullshit in the gaming industry I will not condone with my money.
You’ll need to opt out of pretty much anything digital than because almost every business is has employees using AI is some form or fashion since it’s shoved down everyone’s throats so hard.
Developers are technology forward people. They try new things out. Maybe there’s some unit tests in it, or maybe they asked ChatGPT some questions to see how it responded when they had a problem vs a regular google search. Maybe they did a google search and the answer was in the AI response at the top.
Their IDE probably includes AI tooling that automatically functions like code completion / suggestions.
You’re just deluding yourself if you think you can be using new software that involved zero AI, and that delusion becomes larger and larger for every person involved in it.
They might not be actively using it, but they have used it, and it has touched the software you use.
Edit: Also while were at it, ditch your browser you use the internet in, and your phone.
Edit2: You can continue below if you’d like but I’ll short circuit things here.
Here there’s talk on their repository about using an AI detection service (which is AI) to try and flag AI.
Are you opposed to, for example, AI being used to bug fix?
Personally my opposition is mostly in the form of drawing art, writing plotlines, recording voicelines, etc. I am not opposed to AI being used in certain aspects of game development.
Yes, and while we’re at it let’d refuse to read books not written by scribes. And refuse clothes not woven by hand.
I understand the frustration with the industry, but at the end of the day it is a tool, and it has its uses. Just because it is being misused doesn’t mean it’s universally bad. This just seems petty and misdirected.
Then why have seasoned programmers accepted that getting an LLM to generate messy code, then tidying it up, is often faster than writing 2 dozen lines themselves?
Or myself, I use it with TTRPGs, to simplify NPC creation under a set of structured rules. I still play the characters as unique individuals, but being able to click a button and have 4 personality points to base any nameless NPC around is a lot more fun and dynamic than trying to come up with new characters I didn’t expect the group to speak to, on the spot.
Claiming it does not have any uses at all seems like an expression of your own lack of creativity, or willingness to adapt to new technology. I don’t need to worship the tech-bros to find a use for new technologies.
Can GenAI replace a human? No. There is no context in which human work can be fully replaced by GenAI. But that doesn’t mean it cannot simplify and enhance skilled workers that understand its limitations and use it to increase their own productivity.
Is it possible you’re so engrossed in anger and disgust at how it is being marketed, that you’re deciding to hate the entire concept rather than the fact it is bring misused, and it’s capabilities are being wildly exaggerated to the point of lies? Or that the disgusting manipulation of empty promises on empty promises on empty promises, with the bullshit happening around RAM prices, GPU prices, etc. Or entire workforces being fired in order to be replaced by LLMs is making you prejudiced against the tool, rather than those using it to justify abuse and idiocy?
If hammers were used to kill more people than guns or knives, would you claim there is no reason to ever use or own a hammer?
Then why have seasoned programmers accepted that getting an LLM to generate messy code, then tidying it up, is often faster than writing 2 dozen lines themselves?
I don’t know that they have.
The problem is not that it’s not faster but that this causes a deep influence on the code, as well as being full of bugs that are glossed over in the thousands of lines of code.
Claiming it does not have any uses at all seems like an expression of your own lack of creativity
LOOOOOLOLOL pot meet kettle.
But that doesn’t mean it cannot simplify and enhance skilled workers that understand its limitations and use it to increase their own productivity.
It can’t. It can only be used to generate lazy bug-ridden garbage.
Is it possible you’re so engrossed in anger and disgust at how it is being marketed, that you’re deciding to hate the entire concept
Is it possible that how it’s being marketed makes makes you overlook the bug-ridden garbage that it pumps out?
No, it’s possible that I used it and found it to be wrong a majority of the time and that actually just doing it myself is faster and less error-prone. If you only want to pump out trash then by all means. But I don’t want any part of it.
If hammers were used
I’m so tired of this nonsense. A hammer does not do anything that I do not explicitly make it do. I do not ask a hammer to install the roof and then it runs around driving nails into all the windows.
Why didn’t you remark on my own usage? You’re speaking from your own experience but seem to be ignoring others. Your personal experience is not more valid than others. Or are you convinced that 100% of people who have found any degree of use for it have some how been tricked?
Edit.
Upon re-reading your reply, I have to ask a simple question. What would need to be demonstrated in order to change your mind? If you can think of an honest criteria, we can keep talking about it. If your first response is to say “There is literally nothing that can change my mind.” Then this is not a discussion, it is simply you expressing anger and indignation.
And I’m sorry to say, but if you’re engaging in conversation without a single iota of willingness to see the other sides perspective or reasoning, then you’re a bad conversation partner and are consciously choosing to be arrogant, even if your side is the “Correct” side.
Have I come across as rude or dismissive that you felt the need to mock and belittle me? I tried to form my response respectfully while pointing out possible areas of bias.
You’re speaking from your own experience but seem to be ignoring others
I am not ignoring anything, I just literally cannot speak to your experience. I can only speak to mine.
Or are you convinced that 100% of people who have found any degree of use for it have some how been tricked?
They’ve been grifted, yes. I know they have because I’ve had these conversations over and over again. They come to me with some sort of untrue statement. I ask them where they got it. They say Google. I ask them if it’s the AI Overview and they say yes. I ask them where the AI got that information. They have no idea. I use a real search engine, find an authoritative source that directly and clearly refutes their statement, and they’re confused as to how I got it. They are completely ignorant to the fact that it’s constantly wrong and that it’s use is literally making them dumber, not only because the answer is wrong, but because they’re not actually exercising their brain to find it.
You should speak to others experiences because you are making the universal statement that is has literally no uses, contrary to many people stating they have, in fact, found uses for it.
So either every single person that believes they have found a novel use for it is wrong. Or you have universally decided that none of their experiences are valid in forming your opinion.
Considering I have found a use for it, that does not require it to write code, paint pictures, or tell me I’m right about everything, why is my usage invalid in nullifying your statement that “GenAI does not have any uses.”
There is no ambiguity in that statement, and yet I have found use for it.
Even pure AI art is unenforceable unfortunately. Like any form of cheating, some will be amateurish and obvious. But others will be sophisticated, skilled, and will simply blend into a gray area where you can’t easily define a line.
How much “AI tool assistance” does it take before it’s called “AI generated content”? It’s totally arbitrary, and in many cases it’s going to be completely unenforceable.
That doesn’t mean it has no value, but it does mean it’s not a silver bullet and no amount of tweaking is going to make it one. We can quickly use it to take out the obvious slop, the well-crafted examples will pass beneath anyone’s notice, and when examples fall into the gray area we’ll all bounce around inside with arguments about who we believe and how much is normal and acceptable until we eventually reach an arbitrary, per-game consensus, or maybe adjust the “rules” a little to accommodate them, but nothing really changes, we’ll probably be arguing about whether games contain “too much AI” for decades now and there will never be a clear solution or answer.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. Better to make the rule and enforce it where they can than to just forget about it. Maybe some honest devs will disclose it.
While on principle I don’t care about people using llms to refactor code in my games, I still think that the AI is inevitable narrative is a bit jarring and that study in particular has a huge conflict of interest issue.
Just uninstall all games made after 2022 then, because I can assure you llm’ have been used for code in some capacity in every game. But I would argue there is a big difference in using AI for assert generation. And using it to help read docs or getting ideas for refactoring some code etc
Can I ask why you think that? AI has stolen code and art and is regurgitating both without any credit or attribution to the originators. What makes art different from code in your opinion?
I found the concept of stolen code to be a bit weird. Code isn’t poetry, there is a correct way of doing things and then there is incorrect ways of doing things.
If everybody does things the correct way then the code will be the same for any given problem. So is it stolen?
It’s rather like how it’s almost impossible to play any set of chords and them not be from some prior work. It doesn’t mean that the music was stolen it just means that there is a limited number of ways you can combine notes and if you further limit it to combinations that sound good the set is even smaller.
If I may ask, what is your opinion on AI music? Do you think AI music is fine since there’s a set number of chords and the AI is just combining them in a statistically plausible way?
Obviously I can’t really answer that question. It’s nuanced I can’t give a black and white answer.
Notice I said chords, music isn’t just chords though. I mentioned it because they have been copyright cases where people have tried to claim that they can own certain chords or certain chord progression, the courts have decided that isn’t the case. You can own the composition but not the progression.
AI music is an entire piece, theoretically an original piece, you could of course make the arguement that it’s just cutting it up bits of pre-existing work and sticking them back together but you could also make that arguement of a human as well. Copyright law isn’t really fit for the 21st century and it certainly isn’t fit to deal with the existence of AI, but that’s nothing new. I can go online right now and find music that sounds like the Imperial March, is that copyright violation? The courts don’t think so.
I had initially written a different comment instead of asking about music, but since you brought it up I felt like that’d be a good gauge. I think we should treat all AI devised work similarly. If support AI code we should support AI art. I do think a nuanced approach is understandable though. The following is what I had initially written for my previous comment:
I don’t think there is a “correct” way of doing a lot of the things AI is being asked to do. There are conventions which are followed, but plenty of people solve the same problems in different ways. Is an interaction a click, long press, or a swipe? Is something a button and a popup or a simple menu item? If there was a single correct way to solve coding questions, there would only be one operating system or one Lemmy app. I think a lot of people see code as a bunch of loops rather than a (hopefully) well planned solution to a problem. AI as it stands cannot actually understand a problem, but it can guess what a solution might look like based on similar problems. It takes those people’s solutions and assumptions and applies them and there is an assumption that the output is somehow inevitably that regardless of what or who would have been asked to solve the problem. It’s like saying there’s a “correct” photorealistic beach scene. Sure, plenty of people might have an idea of what that might look like, but everyone might have a different take. Are there palm trees? Are there birds? Where is the sun in the picture? I’m sure AI can generate a serviceable rendition of one, but it’s rendition is no more correct, and it certainly wasn’t done with an actual understanding of the elements of the scene. People aren’t asking AI to generate “if… else…” they are having AI design applications whole cloth and we end up seeing the results like that site that had its user list exposed on its front end or that have buttons that go nowhere. If there was one correct solution then AI either didn’t know it, didn’t understand it, or didn’t deliver it. Any of those options is a failure of the AI in that case, but the in my opinion true and scarier answer is that there is no correct way to do a lot of things AI is generating code for and that it is prone to mistakes for that reason.
There is a big difference, and I’d argue the Claude refactoring is worse. Content was already pursuing the common denominator. But open source was a place where you could actually bring some nuance, examine things in detail, and build a shared understanding of deeper truths. But why bother with the icky social factors of working together to build something with people all around the world that can evolve and last for 10+ years, when you can boil a swimming pool to produce a half-baked one-off solution instead?
Yeah I mean, that sounds reasonable. There is a big difference between generating all your game assets with AI and using Claude to refactor methods and write docs.
Big difference but I would argue both require disclosure because I will opt out of any of it. Add it to the long list of bullshit in the gaming industry I will not condone with my money.
You’ll need to opt out of pretty much anything digital than because almost every business is has employees using AI is some form or fashion since it’s shoved down everyone’s throats so hard.
Anything that I find that’s digital and uses AI, I do opt out of, thank you.
I called an HVAC company several weeks ago and they had an AI agent answer the phone. I hung up and called someone else. No problem.
You better stop using lemmy or your lemmy client then.
Odds are astronomically high that they’ve used AI at some point on its development.
I don’t use Lemmy, I use PieFed, and it never used any AI. Thanks for playing though.
You really don’t understand.
They’ve used AI too.
Developers are technology forward people. They try new things out. Maybe there’s some unit tests in it, or maybe they asked ChatGPT some questions to see how it responded when they had a problem vs a regular google search. Maybe they did a google search and the answer was in the AI response at the top.
Their IDE probably includes AI tooling that automatically functions like code completion / suggestions.
You’re just deluding yourself if you think you can be using new software that involved zero AI, and that delusion becomes larger and larger for every person involved in it.
They might not be actively using it, but they have used it, and it has touched the software you use.
Edit: Also while were at it, ditch your browser you use the internet in, and your phone.
Edit2: You can continue below if you’d like but I’ll short circuit things here.
Here there’s talk on their repository about using an AI detection service (which is AI) to try and flag AI.
https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/issues/605
https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/issues/530 and image hashing with a link to his chatgpt chat.
So ya, AI was used in the development process (planning / discussing / testing) is part of the process.
Where?
I literally just gave you all sorts of examples of how or where.
Are you opposed to, for example, AI being used to bug fix?
Personally my opposition is mostly in the form of drawing art, writing plotlines, recording voicelines, etc. I am not opposed to AI being used in certain aspects of game development.
Yes, and while we’re at it let’d refuse to read books not written by scribes. And refuse clothes not woven by hand.
I understand the frustration with the industry, but at the end of the day it is a tool, and it has its uses. Just because it is being misused doesn’t mean it’s universally bad. This just seems petty and misdirected.
GenAI does not have any uses. It is universally bad. If you think so, you need to stop drinking the corpo KoolAid and pay closer attention.
You think having a nuanced opinion on a tool is somehow objectively bad. You need to touch some grass.
There is no nuance
Then why have seasoned programmers accepted that getting an LLM to generate messy code, then tidying it up, is often faster than writing 2 dozen lines themselves?
Or myself, I use it with TTRPGs, to simplify NPC creation under a set of structured rules. I still play the characters as unique individuals, but being able to click a button and have 4 personality points to base any nameless NPC around is a lot more fun and dynamic than trying to come up with new characters I didn’t expect the group to speak to, on the spot.
Claiming it does not have any uses at all seems like an expression of your own lack of creativity, or willingness to adapt to new technology. I don’t need to worship the tech-bros to find a use for new technologies.
Can GenAI replace a human? No. There is no context in which human work can be fully replaced by GenAI. But that doesn’t mean it cannot simplify and enhance skilled workers that understand its limitations and use it to increase their own productivity.
Is it possible you’re so engrossed in anger and disgust at how it is being marketed, that you’re deciding to hate the entire concept rather than the fact it is bring misused, and it’s capabilities are being wildly exaggerated to the point of lies? Or that the disgusting manipulation of empty promises on empty promises on empty promises, with the bullshit happening around RAM prices, GPU prices, etc. Or entire workforces being fired in order to be replaced by LLMs is making you prejudiced against the tool, rather than those using it to justify abuse and idiocy?
If hammers were used to kill more people than guns or knives, would you claim there is no reason to ever use or own a hammer?
I don’t know that they have.
The problem is not that it’s not faster but that this causes a deep influence on the code, as well as being full of bugs that are glossed over in the thousands of lines of code.
LOOOOOLOLOL pot meet kettle.
It can’t. It can only be used to generate lazy bug-ridden garbage.
Is it possible that how it’s being marketed makes makes you overlook the bug-ridden garbage that it pumps out?
No, it’s possible that I used it and found it to be wrong a majority of the time and that actually just doing it myself is faster and less error-prone. If you only want to pump out trash then by all means. But I don’t want any part of it.
I’m so tired of this nonsense. A hammer does not do anything that I do not explicitly make it do. I do not ask a hammer to install the roof and then it runs around driving nails into all the windows.
Why didn’t you remark on my own usage? You’re speaking from your own experience but seem to be ignoring others. Your personal experience is not more valid than others. Or are you convinced that 100% of people who have found any degree of use for it have some how been tricked?
Edit.
Upon re-reading your reply, I have to ask a simple question. What would need to be demonstrated in order to change your mind? If you can think of an honest criteria, we can keep talking about it. If your first response is to say “There is literally nothing that can change my mind.” Then this is not a discussion, it is simply you expressing anger and indignation.
And I’m sorry to say, but if you’re engaging in conversation without a single iota of willingness to see the other sides perspective or reasoning, then you’re a bad conversation partner and are consciously choosing to be arrogant, even if your side is the “Correct” side.
Have I come across as rude or dismissive that you felt the need to mock and belittle me? I tried to form my response respectfully while pointing out possible areas of bias.
Why would I comment on your usage?
I am not ignoring anything, I just literally cannot speak to your experience. I can only speak to mine.
They’ve been grifted, yes. I know they have because I’ve had these conversations over and over again. They come to me with some sort of untrue statement. I ask them where they got it. They say Google. I ask them if it’s the AI Overview and they say yes. I ask them where the AI got that information. They have no idea. I use a real search engine, find an authoritative source that directly and clearly refutes their statement, and they’re confused as to how I got it. They are completely ignorant to the fact that it’s constantly wrong and that it’s use is literally making them dumber, not only because the answer is wrong, but because they’re not actually exercising their brain to find it.
You should speak to others experiences because you are making the universal statement that is has literally no uses, contrary to many people stating they have, in fact, found uses for it.
So either every single person that believes they have found a novel use for it is wrong. Or you have universally decided that none of their experiences are valid in forming your opinion.
Considering I have found a use for it, that does not require it to write code, paint pictures, or tell me I’m right about everything, why is my usage invalid in nullifying your statement that “GenAI does not have any uses.”
There is no ambiguity in that statement, and yet I have found use for it.
The problem is that it’s unenforcable. I bet that’s one of the reasons valve is rephrasing.
Even pure AI art is unenforceable unfortunately. Like any form of cheating, some will be amateurish and obvious. But others will be sophisticated, skilled, and will simply blend into a gray area where you can’t easily define a line.
How much “AI tool assistance” does it take before it’s called “AI generated content”? It’s totally arbitrary, and in many cases it’s going to be completely unenforceable.
That doesn’t mean it has no value, but it does mean it’s not a silver bullet and no amount of tweaking is going to make it one. We can quickly use it to take out the obvious slop, the well-crafted examples will pass beneath anyone’s notice, and when examples fall into the gray area we’ll all bounce around inside with arguments about who we believe and how much is normal and acceptable until we eventually reach an arbitrary, per-game consensus, or maybe adjust the “rules” a little to accommodate them, but nothing really changes, we’ll probably be arguing about whether games contain “too much AI” for decades now and there will never be a clear solution or answer.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. Better to make the rule and enforce it where they can than to just forget about it. Maybe some honest devs will disclose it.
https://www.reuters.com/business/nearly-90-videogame-developers-use-ai-agents-google-study-shows-2025-08-18/
Good luck finding a dev that doesn’t want to use/ isn’t forced to use / doesn’t lie about using AI tools.
Ar this point if we’re to shun all AI tools we might just give up the hobby.
Hi, dev here who doesn’t use AI.
As an indie / solo dev it’s possible, but how sure are you?
Did a Google AI answer at the top help you in any way during development?
Are you sure your IDEs completion or code suggestions isn’t LLM based? If not LLM based, are you sure it’s not some sort of ML based suggestions?
There’s probably more ways you could be using it without considering it.
Now get into a studio of many devs, and try to guarantee 1 hasn’t.
nothing is stopping me from making my own games without AI
There’s plenty of good games made before this gen AI nonsense started appearing.
While on principle I don’t care about people using llms to refactor code in my games, I still think that the AI is inevitable narrative is a bit jarring and that study in particular has a huge conflict of interest issue.
It will be worse in the future, because young people growing up with Ai will find it 100% acceptable. Not everyone off course…
I have considered it many times.
Just uninstall all games made after 2022 then, because I can assure you llm’ have been used for code in some capacity in every game. But I would argue there is a big difference in using AI for assert generation. And using it to help read docs or getting ideas for refactoring some code etc
Can I ask why you think that? AI has stolen code and art and is regurgitating both without any credit or attribution to the originators. What makes art different from code in your opinion?
I found the concept of stolen code to be a bit weird. Code isn’t poetry, there is a correct way of doing things and then there is incorrect ways of doing things.
If everybody does things the correct way then the code will be the same for any given problem. So is it stolen?
It’s rather like how it’s almost impossible to play any set of chords and them not be from some prior work. It doesn’t mean that the music was stolen it just means that there is a limited number of ways you can combine notes and if you further limit it to combinations that sound good the set is even smaller.
If I may ask, what is your opinion on AI music? Do you think AI music is fine since there’s a set number of chords and the AI is just combining them in a statistically plausible way?
Obviously I can’t really answer that question. It’s nuanced I can’t give a black and white answer.
Notice I said chords, music isn’t just chords though. I mentioned it because they have been copyright cases where people have tried to claim that they can own certain chords or certain chord progression, the courts have decided that isn’t the case. You can own the composition but not the progression.
AI music is an entire piece, theoretically an original piece, you could of course make the arguement that it’s just cutting it up bits of pre-existing work and sticking them back together but you could also make that arguement of a human as well. Copyright law isn’t really fit for the 21st century and it certainly isn’t fit to deal with the existence of AI, but that’s nothing new. I can go online right now and find music that sounds like the Imperial March, is that copyright violation? The courts don’t think so.
I had initially written a different comment instead of asking about music, but since you brought it up I felt like that’d be a good gauge. I think we should treat all AI devised work similarly. If support AI code we should support AI art. I do think a nuanced approach is understandable though. The following is what I had initially written for my previous comment:
I don’t think there is a “correct” way of doing a lot of the things AI is being asked to do. There are conventions which are followed, but plenty of people solve the same problems in different ways. Is an interaction a click, long press, or a swipe? Is something a button and a popup or a simple menu item? If there was a single correct way to solve coding questions, there would only be one operating system or one Lemmy app. I think a lot of people see code as a bunch of loops rather than a (hopefully) well planned solution to a problem. AI as it stands cannot actually understand a problem, but it can guess what a solution might look like based on similar problems. It takes those people’s solutions and assumptions and applies them and there is an assumption that the output is somehow inevitably that regardless of what or who would have been asked to solve the problem. It’s like saying there’s a “correct” photorealistic beach scene. Sure, plenty of people might have an idea of what that might look like, but everyone might have a different take. Are there palm trees? Are there birds? Where is the sun in the picture? I’m sure AI can generate a serviceable rendition of one, but it’s rendition is no more correct, and it certainly wasn’t done with an actual understanding of the elements of the scene. People aren’t asking AI to generate “if… else…” they are having AI design applications whole cloth and we end up seeing the results like that site that had its user list exposed on its front end or that have buttons that go nowhere. If there was one correct solution then AI either didn’t know it, didn’t understand it, or didn’t deliver it. Any of those options is a failure of the AI in that case, but the in my opinion true and scarier answer is that there is no correct way to do a lot of things AI is generating code for and that it is prone to mistakes for that reason.
There is a big difference, and I’d argue the Claude refactoring is worse. Content was already pursuing the common denominator. But open source was a place where you could actually bring some nuance, examine things in detail, and build a shared understanding of deeper truths. But why bother with the icky social factors of working together to build something with people all around the world that can evolve and last for 10+ years, when you can boil a swimming pool to produce a half-baked one-off solution instead?
Because it’ll be half-baked and one-off.