Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 419 posts

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

#311

Post by maiybe »

eudamoniac wrote: post #305
maiybe wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd put my estimates at 3x speed improvements. The amount of infra required upfront? 5x one time cost. These are estimates from Godot mobile app work. We have been trying out: no reviews under specific file sizes, except at design bottlenecks or large refactors. Number of PRs is probably up 3x with maybe 20% increase in regressions? Number of tests in our CI is up 500% (again, approximate), but this is absolutely req…

Hearing about a Godot mobile app is hilarious to me. If there was ever a signal that Godot is not a serious tool to create releasable games, but rather a toy for beginners to mess around with, spending a bunch of resources on porting the engine to phones is it. Wowza

I am struggling to understand the exact content of your message. I believe it's that Godot is unserious. Okay? Game engines serve a niche much smaller than broad consumer apps or SaaS platforms. Seems like a dunk I don't quite understand.

It's a game built in Godot that runs on mobile (a mobile game). Godot is C++, there is no porting of engine to run on mobile? Slay the Spire 2 is built in Godot and has 500k concurrent users.

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

#312

Post by lokar »

mikepurvis wrote: post #255
TomasBM wrote: 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 se…

I think OSS maintainers are in the middle of intersecting trends:

- tough hiring market, especially for more Jr candidates

- the perception (true or not) that OSS contributions help get attention from recruiters

- LLMs making it very easy to generate “contributions”

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

#313

Post by eudamoniac »

maiybe wrote: post #311
eudamoniac wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hearing about a Godot mobile app is hilarious to me. If there was ever a signal that Godot is not a serious tool to create releasable games, but rather a toy for beginners to mess around with, spending a bunch of resources on porting the engine to phones is it. Wowza

I am struggling to understand the exact content of your message. I believe it's that Godot is unserious. Okay? Game engines serve a niche much smaller than broad consumer apps or SaaS platforms. Seems like a dunk I don't quite understand. It's a game built in Godot that runs on mobile (a mobile game). Godot is C++, there is no porting of engine to run on mobile? Slay the Spire 2 is built in Godot and has 500k concurr…

I interpreted your comment "Godot mobile app work" to mean you worked on porting Godot itself to mobile, which I then checked and found that it did actually happen https://godotengine.org/article/gabe-stable-release/

If Godot for Android is unrelated to you then I misread. But I still find it hilarious conceptually, unrelated to you, that Godot is spending resources on porting itself to phones while it has so many serious outstanding issues. As though game devs are going to be coding on their phones in any meaningful way.

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

#314

Post by betorabinovich »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #215
TomasBM wrote: 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…

How strict is this no AI policy? Say AI is used to identify and rewrite a single function that improves performance or fixes a bug, then the developer carefully reviews and tests it and submits a nice tight PR with all human communication. So they don’t want that? They would just reject it? If I’m understanding correctly, under the policy the higher performance function / bug free submission would be rejected and the…

from TFA:

> The Foundation says we can expect Godot's contributing policy to soon include explicit rejections of AI-authored code, noting that contributors should only use AI assistance for "menial things" and must disclose its use. Additionally, the Foundation will reject any AI-generated text in human-to-human communications, saying it's "a basic principle of respect"—though it says machine translations "are still acceptable" if the original text was human-authored.

As long as your bots aren't contributing low-effort garbage in a push to give their operator some of those tasty internet brownie points you should be fine

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

#315

Post by avensec »

pineappletooth_ wrote: post #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.

The first example is not just that it was AI-driven, but that he is young.

There was enough info in his repos to find his aliases and social media accounts. He is a preteen and simply doesn't yet have the foundational understanding needed to begin to grasp the problem or the social constructs involved.

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

#316

Post by mexicocitinluez »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #243
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #217

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…

> A pull request is a social artifact whose value and meaning is dependent on its author;

Says who? How can you say I'm categorically wrong when your entire point rests upon an opinion?

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

#317

Post by anonymousab »

maiybe wrote: post #293
overgard wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, this is fundamentally where we end up disagreeing. Within the timeframe of a single mobile app development cycle, the entire coding infrastructure of the world changed. Our collective day-to-day coding experience has morphed within 15 months. Here, you're making a negative argument, it "can't" be done. Maybe. Historically, correct. I prefer to image what could be done. As insane a statement as it sounds just 15…

Even getting through the discussions and negotiations with the 3 big game console companies to support their platforms can eat up so much of your time window. You can't really vibecode your way out of that - though I suppose you could generate your email responses or an AI meeting participant and risk blowing up the business relationship.

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

#318

Post by mexicocitinluez »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #240
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #217

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…

Probably because a human authored contribution, no matter how bad, can be trained to make it good and also improves the community.

> can be trained to make it good and also improves the community.

AI can be trained. Also, AI can create code that improves the community. It's replies like this that leave me even more confused.

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

#319

Post by skeeter2020 »

snarfy wrote: post #200
ivorius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Negative: Submitters just add stylistic markers to make their accounts and output seem human-generated. This is like syntactic sugar: the core content and the size of contributions stay the same, but the style gets quirkier. 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. > Positive: Submitters act…

They could allow AI PRs, but then have another AI PR reviewer reject them if they do not match the definitions for `to-the-point` `no-bullshit` commits.

Please provide 3 examples where layering on MORE of the offending technology has solved the problem. Spam? Malware & Viruses? Customer Service? Hiring & Recruitment?

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

#320

Post by fantasizr »

brettermeier wrote: post #68

Do those AI contributors really think they are helping out? Don't they get, that they are destroying such projects with their "work"? Why do they spend money for stuff nobody wants and gets rejected. I don't get it... Don't these people have any hobbies? Or are these free-roaming OpenClaw instances that have been forgotten by their creator and are now doing their own thing?

this is like ai use in arts to some degree, people don't want to write, they want to 'have written' and collect the social status that they think it confers. People don't want to code or make products better (or even understand the details) they want 'lines of code' or 'commit' or a pretty github green profile.
Post reply on HN