261–270 of 419 posts
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…
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'r…
When you go to invest in an engine. One with Claude Code natively infused and another that says "meh" to AI. Which would you have your small indie dev team choose? Smart money says velocity. I suspect the Godot-slayer I am imagining will start getting buzz in /r/aigamedev subreddit as the only way to quickly code a game. A little better design and 3D work from Anthropic, and we are off to the races.
Regarding game dev hatred of AI, I've been to GDC for the last 3 years for the explicit purpose of talking about AI in games. The wall of hatred isn't holding strong. It used to be universal. Now, not so much. People on their laptops claude coding during presentations. 20% of talks being about AI in games, and _sponsored (!!!)_ talks about AI are getting the largest crowds at GDC this year. The times, they are a changin'. This is only a clever marketing move for a certain set of developers, which I totally agree are the (maybe?) majority today. I said 3-5 years though, not 6 months...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is well-capable of fabricating text that looks like an opinion in 2026. This would not help differentiate AI from human authors.
You’re absolutely right - AI is not just capable, it’s on the leading edge. It’s not about vibes, it’s about results. (It’s famously not well capable of sounding human)
Rather than a binary, I prefer to measure the question of "how much text does it take to be reasonably sure that it's an AI?"
By that metric, it is getting better at a reasonable pace. People are also getting better at prompting their AIs to write in something other than the default LLM style. If you think you're good at picking up that style, you probably are. But it's a lot harder to pick up AIs when they're fed a style sample. You wrote in the default AI style, and yeah, most of us have twigged to that by the end of your couple of short sentences. But feed the AI a style sample and it can definitely make it two sentences without every one realizing it's AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I personally wouldn't care if it was AI-generated or not, as long as the content fit the latter category. It's pragmatic. Linus once said, the reason C++ is not allowed in the kernel is to keep the C++ people out.
Joke's on him, many Rust people are current or former C++ people.
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…
This is exactly what will make Godot shine in 2 years while the rest of the world will be busy cleaning up inefficient code.
But they'll both be beaten by people using AI intelligently to generate code, but not letting it drive everything. Who look at every line and apply their experience to fixing what the AI generates until it outputs more or less what you would have, only more quickly.
The false dichotomy that some of you are trying to push between "just taking whatever the AI slops out" and "pristine hand-crafted code by dedicated, loving experts" doesn't exist.
Interesting that on one hand the valuation of these AI providers is based on the assumption that all code (and everything else producing digital artefacts) will be written using AI in the near future, on the other hand almost all popular open source projects fight to keep AI contributions out. Hard to reconcile. Personally I'm also experiencing a bit of AI hangover after using it a lot in my own open-source projects.…
Godot, Zig, who else? Most major OSS projects I know are openly welcoming high quality AI contributions, not fighting to keep them out.
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.
This university is very stupid university. Is there anyway to know which university is forcing these kids to spam open source project?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fork also had its own drama, resulting in one of the more active developers of the fork, plus the guy who helped kick off the original drama, splitting off to create yet another fork. Both forks are still active, I believe. It was all very silly
Most of it was silly, but being banned on github for a reasonable objection is still very tyrannical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that a lot of AI contributions are lazily produced without review. That sounds like a contributor problem. Not an AI problem. I still don't understand a "no AI" policy whose only purpose is to weed out bad PRs. You should be weeding out bad PR's regardless of their source. I don't see why treating a purely human-authored, but bad, piece of code should be treated any differently than an AI-authored on…
You should not be weeding out bad PRs regardless of their source! A pull request is a social artifact whose value and meaning is dependent on its author; bad PRs from a human author often mean things such as "I'd like to learn how this works and join your community". So it can be both satisfying and worthwhile to spend your effort on cleaning it up, even if it starts to take as much or even more effort than doing it…
I think the difference in perspective might come from the fact that to many people the code and features matters more than any community or the idea of participating in it. If it works, it works.
Or maybe they’re not even indifferent about the community, just upset at people throwing away working code.