Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by throwfaraway135 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC

optionalsquid wrote: post #269

throwfaraway135 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of it was silly, but being banned on github for a reasonable objection is still very tyrannical.

From what I recall, based on what a Godot developer wrote at the time, nobody got banned from GitHub for "a reasonable objection". The only people who got banned from GitHub were those who posted abuse there, after a few people had gotten blocked by the Godot Twitter account

The problem here is the definition of abuse. And I don't mean to say that I'm 100% sure Godot overstepped in the github ban cases, but if they can ban people for criticizing them I wouldn't be surprised if they overstepped there too.

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

#282

Post by someguynamedq » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC

CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #67

flexagoon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Submitters just add stylistic markers to make their accounts and output seem human-generated https://xkcd.com/810/

Not quite accomplished, if it's creating text on the pull requests that looks sufficiently human-like, but you're still worried about the quality of the code and that the submitter doesn't understand it.

No different than a human written PR

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

#283

Post by dofm » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:42 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #265

rschiavone wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what will make Godot shine in 2 years while the rest of the world will be busy cleaning up inefficient code.

The people who hand write code for a game engine will beat the people who try to vibe code a game engine. 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…

> But they'll both be beaten by people using AI intelligently to generate code, but not letting it drive everything.

I mean, this remains to be seen. Is this actually much faster or better than coding by hand?

(Not a facetious question: it's one I grapple with all the time)

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

#284

Post by someguynamedq » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:42 PM UTC

ivorius wrote: post #126

blackoil wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better way is to provide a Claude.md with strong stylistic guidelines and loc requirements. Else it will be a chicken and mouse game of what is from AI.

I made a PR like that, but it was rejected by the community (for some valid reasons and some not so valid). https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/118681

Which goes to show that despite all of the rationalization both here and in the comments of that PR, the push to ban AI is religious not reasoned.

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

#285

Post by the_hoser » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:44 PM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #260

maybewhenthesun wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The policy isn't necessary to close the PR. The policy just helps to shut down the ensuing discussion after closing the PR. It helps in quickly dealing with well-meaning onlookers asking for clarification when you block PRs from the account.

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

#286

Post by verdverm » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC

terminalbraid wrote: post #169

avaer wrote: post #35

Totally valid. If someone thinks they're building better open source with their AI, let them fork; their AI can maintain downstream. If it's really better, people will join the fork. Good luck. In all likelihood anyone attempting this will realize the value that a maintainer provides. On the odd chance they discover a new working model and produce better software, all the better, everyone wins.

Weird that AI is supposed to be able to enable all this and yet all we get is news about how it's really just burning out projects that have limited resources making them more expensive and companies having to hire back devs they laid off.

There is a saying in the services industry, one unhappy person will tell 10 people and it takes 10 happy people to tell one. The quantity of what you read online is not an actual representation. Best not to treat all Ai use and users as one group either.

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

#287

Post by jayd16 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC

someonebaggy wrote: post #77

captainbland wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind. I think this may be an example of deliberate hostile design, attempting to force users to adopt LLM based solutions to then summarise the vast output. Pushing back against AI contributions as such in this context makes sense, especially in software with an existing proven track record of great value delivery like Godot.

There's no chance that anyone saw that far ahead in the future and planned it. It's emergent behaviour.

Big tech: "Should we add any functionality at all to filter AI slop in any of our platforms?" "...nah"

Its not 500 moves ahead.

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

#288

Post by overgard » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:47 PM UTC

red75prime wrote: post #276

overgard wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think drugs are actually a great analogy. An initial feeling of "oh my god I have superhuman capabilities" followed by a hangover of "ohno I have created a mess". Especially with AI sycophancy where it's like "Great idea!" all the time. (I am well aware most my ideas are not great, thanks). Honestly, even the way people talk about like vibe coding on their phones while they're with their kids or something, it almos…

> An initial feeling of "oh my god I have superhuman capabilities" followed by a hangover of "ohno I have created a mess". Continuing the analogy: if this happens, then you are using the wrong drugs or you are using the drugs wrong. It's not like there's an axiom "you can't enhance your performance without detrimental side-effects."

Maybe we just need stronger drugs!

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

#289

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

This makes sense in the short term, but we really need the industry as a whole to learn how to code with AI in a safe sustainable way. Open Source has a particular problem of taking a really long time to make changes, fix bugs, etc. A lot of design decisions are due to "we don't have time for this". AI can speed those things up and drastically increase the utility we can get out of open source. We just need to figure out how to do it without creating a mess.

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

#290

Post by overgard » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:56 PM UTC

maiybe wrote: post #262

overgard wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For many years, it's been difficult to build game engines. It's never been easier today. A half-decently funded startup team could get to Godot feature parity within 6-12 months. There's no VC in games anymore (especially not middleware), so it's less unlikely, but they don't have a moat on features. When you go to invest in an engine. One with Claude Code natively infused and another that says "meh" to AI. Which wou…

Oh god. If you really believe you can vibe code an engine in 6 months I challenge you to do it. I think you'll find you've wildly underestimated what goes into an engine.