11–20 of 68 posts
Loved it. That's exactly what AI should be used for. Something that would take us one month at least, full of bugs, AI now delivers in less than a day, ready to ship This is the essence, AI is a super power, the world is ours
Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more polish.
That said, HN is traditionally for sharing code with the community. Maybe for AI submissions people should share their prompts? I don't know. I'd ask to see the code but since you didn't write it you can't really discuss it.
Loved it. That's exactly what AI should be used for. Something that would take us one month at least, full of bugs, AI now delivers in less than a day, ready to ship This is the essence, AI is a super power, the world is ours
Don't me overdramatic. The guy who made Flappy Bird did it in a weekend without AI. A simple game like this wouldn't be difficult in any modern framework. That it can be vibe-coded in less than a day isn't really much value.
Loved it. That's exactly what AI should be used for. Something that would take us one month at least, full of bugs, AI now delivers in less than a day, ready to ship This is the essence, AI is a super power, the world is ours
(Regarding the parting shot, I find myself once again, for the numerousth time, reminded of this curious lobsters comment that I'm having difficulty forgetting: https://lobste.rs/s/omq8rt/vibecoding_gets_emacs_patch_rejec... - perhaps not quite entirely directly germane here, I don't think, but, still, somehow, not quite entirely directly not.)
The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.) Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more…
Brusque but not inaccurate, Welcome to our future I guess.
The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.) Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more…
Huh? Why do you believe this? ever take a literature class?
Regarding scanlines, there is a setting to turn them off.
The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.) Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more…
> I don't know. I'd ask to see the code but since you didn't write it you can't really discuss it. Huh? Why do you believe this? ever take a literature class? Regarding scanlines, there is a setting to turn them off.
But the entire point of using an AI to generate code is not to pay attention to any of that. The author of AI generated code did not write said code and cannot therefore provide any insight into the process or methodology beyond "here is the prompt and model I used." Nothing that would be of value to the few of us left on this site who actually care about such things. Nothing, in other words, to gratify intellectual curiosity.
Also regarding scanlines, fake scanlines shouldn't obscure UI elements or make them difficult to read. Actual scanlines on actual CRTs didn't do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know. I'd ask to see the code but since you didn't write it you can't really discuss it. Huh? Why do you believe this? ever take a literature class? Regarding scanlines, there is a setting to turn them off.
Literature is written by human beings, and if the author was in the class I expect they would be able to discuss their process and methodologies. But the entire point of using an AI to generate code is not to pay attention to any of that. The author of AI generated code did not write said code and cannot therefore provide any insight into the process or methodology beyond "here is the prompt and model I used." Nothin…
The point of AI is not to generate code and not pay attention…
The fake scanlines and position of the UI elements make them difficult to read. The plane is too slow and its turn radius is too tight, the physics (if there are any) need to be improved to give a sense of weight and velocity to the plane IMO, and that probably necessitates a bigger playfield. Also it feels like it really needs a gun (edit: OK it does.) Overall it feels like an OK prototype but I agree it needs more…
It took me less than 10 seconds into gameplay to pick up bullets for the (already existing) gun. Your comment reads as if you didn't try to play the game for more than a few seconds.
It's a fun little game; no need to be so smugly dismissive.