Live data from Hacker News

Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

pcgamer.com

251–260 of 419 posts

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this crazy narrative that everyone starts parroting, saying the days of writing code yourself are over, now we have to use agents for everything. No, we don't have to. We can just write code ourselves. (My condolences to people who have jobs where AI is mandated.)

I'm in that boat - my current employer recently announced that they are tracking AI usage across the company and if you're not using enough AI you will be "replaced by someone who does".

This seems like an awesome opportunity to sneak in some work on side projects to keep your token counts looking good.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#252
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Integrating AI-assisted PRs into an existing team is a skillset all in itself. The team is taking a pretty strong stance against external AI-assisted PRs, which makes you think they'd take a weak stance against internal AI-assisted PRs? It's hard to draw the exact line, but maybe? For our team, the outcome is the PR, and you have to set up _a lot of testing infrastructure_ to prevent regressions. It's a skillset like…

but their stated reasoning is that they do open PRs to train up new contributors and eventually get them into the community where they'll be more trusted. That doesn't suggest a hardline stance against the tools to me necessarily at least.

On one hand, you could be right! I am making inferences on low data, judging the Godot team based on some of their _strong_ design choices. I would have a better argument if I spent the time tracking the Github issues that seemed quite wild that we encountered while building in Godot. Top of mind (low evidence, sorry) GDScript as a base scripting language (later reversed by C#), refusal to add async/await for GDScript, others that have escaped me.

What I am saying is squishy conjecture.

On the other hand, they're training new contributors to make internal AI-assisted PRs by requiring them to make non-assisted PRs? That sounds unlikely but I suppose possible.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#253
post #192

A point of wild speculation. This is likely to be the slow decline of Godot. As someone with 2 years of Godot experience (which seems like a lot given their lifespan), the underlying infra isn't strong enough to ward off the many competitors that will embrace AI at the heart of the engine. Ironically, the best engine right now for AI-assisted coding is Godot! It has plain text scene files, and Opus does a half decent…

You have to consider the market for Godot: indie developers. They don't need cutting edge features; they need a good workflow, ease of use, a good community, stability, etc. Unity is actually really annoying in this regard, because they're _constantly_ deprecating features in favor of new features that are half baked and poorly documented. It feels like a really unstable platform to build on because by the time you're done with a project most of the things you built now need to be thrown away because the underlying engine changed so much, or you're halfway through a feature and you have to decide if you want to rewrite a huge chunk of code to support something new that came out. Unreal Engine is also going through this at the moment (although they're better about backwards compatibility). Hearing that they're dropping blueprints in favor of verse has a lot of people stuck in "uh, should I bother learning the current engine right now". I don't think it'll hurt UE in the long run, but I could easily see them losing some short term adoption. Stability in a platform is a very important feature!

Building on an engine is a HUGE investment, and nobody serious picks a game engine because of its feature velocity, they pick it based on what it can do today.

Also in terms of marketing I think this is pretty clever. I know a lot of game developers (I used to work in the industry), and pretty much everyone I know despises AI on some level. HN is mostly business people who see dollar signs, but creatives just see destruction of art forms they care about, so none of their users are going to see this as a bad thing.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#254
For people that don't get it just check this: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/115280 https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/116410

For a project that already struggled with the ammount of PRs to review before AI era is not fair to mantainers to keep dealing with things like this.

That's why the real big change in the policy is that new contributors can't take big features or refactors.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#255
post #7

It's a fair policy. Getting those verbose, AI-authored walls of text is very annoying, especially when you're expected to thoroughly review it. It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind. I can only imagine how frustrating this can get in open projects that get a lot of contributions. However, I don't think this will discourage AI-based coding at all. In fact, I see two potential outcomes of these policie…

In my day job, I do a lot of AI coding but almost never have Claude actually create the PR titles or descriptions for me. It produces too much content, and the justification/background sections are often not quite right.

Most PRs to me are not coming out of nowhere anyway, rather they're "here's the linked issue, I started out addressing it by doing X and Y, but then Y got hairy so I switched to Z, hope that makes sense but happy to discuss further as well."

And most feedback is not "let's have you explain the design to me in a diff comment" but rather please explain this design in a code comment so that the next reader of the source will have your context.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#256

For people that don't get it just check this: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/115280 https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/116410 For a project that already struggled with the ammount of PRs to review before AI era is not fair to mantainers to keep dealing with things like this. That's why the real big change in the policy is that new contributors can't take big features or refactors.

That is crazy. What is the actual motivation of that contributor?

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#257
post #192

A point of wild speculation. This is likely to be the slow decline of Godot. As someone with 2 years of Godot experience (which seems like a lot given their lifespan), the underlying infra isn't strong enough to ward off the many competitors that will embrace AI at the heart of the engine. Ironically, the best engine right now for AI-assisted coding is Godot! It has plain text scene files, and Opus does a half decent…

>As someone with 2 years of Godot experience (which seems like a lot given their lifespan), the underlying infra isn't strong enough to ward off the many competitors that will embrace AI at the heart of the engine. Like who? Unity/Unreal? Those are completely different engines for a different audience. IMO, Godot has a unique market space and no real peers. I think this was a wise decision that only adds to their bra…

AI-assisted coding is good for creators. It happens to be good for corporations because it reduces costs, but it's actually much more powerful for creators with imagination. I don't know where that argument comes from.

If AI-assisted coding can help corporations make AAA games with 1/10th the resources, then it would stand to reason it also helps indies make AAA with 1/10th the resources? I have never understood this argument.

Godot has no peers because for the last 30 years in software, it's been hard for people to make their own game engines, which made open source engines totally impractical. W4 is a non-profit organization that happened to get just enough resources and traction to make it. That underlying assumption is not true anymore, making engines has never been easier in software history. Unreal/Unity are not the competitors I'm talking about.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#258
post #18

There are some curated lists of no-AI software. Would be nice to have an index / plot of how that changes in time. https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html

Interesting initiative. What are the guiding reasons behind these lists? I can't think of a functional reason for a no-AI policy: if it runs, it runs, regardless of who or what made it. Also, even if you avoid AI-generated slop, you can't really avoid the human-generated or human+AI-generated slop that passes your filters. Still, I can definitely think of good non-functional reasons: provenance, accountability, proof…

> if it runs, it runs, regardless of who or what made it.

If it fails to run who is responsible to fix ? Problem with AI is that it does not have causal-models of how something works, and the reason for that is that it doesnt interact with the world. I think of it as an armchair expert who spouts recommendations without having a grounded understanding in the real world.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small 4-9B model would be able to run cheaply for this sort of work.

What question do you think you're answering?

The Godot Foundation pays for it if it furthers their mission.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my experience reviewing, most contributors never read the policies, especially those making a "quick AI PR". I don't expect the new policy to change this much. True. At least with a policy about it, the project maintainers can unilaterally close such PRs without further internal or external discussion on any case-by-case basis.

Dingdingding, we have a winner. The main use of such a policy is to be able to just close those giant wall-of-text PRs and have something to point to when people start to scream it's not fair.

Why is a policy necessary. you were never entitled to have your pr merged in the first place? If pr wasn't reviewable pre AI I'd expect it to be closed or ignored too
Post reply on HN