I think this was the most important insight in the article: > I experimented with Rust/Bevy and Unity before settling on Godot. Bevy’s animations and visuals weren’t as crisp, and Claude struggled with its coordinate conventions - likely a combination of less training data and Bevy leaving many core features, like physics, to the community. Unity was a constant struggle to keep the MCP bridge between Claude and the e…
Also makes me wonder if we'll start seeing tools designed specifically to be LLM-legible
If you haven’t watched it, please watch Rick and Morty S1E2. Your dog’s name is Snuffles, and he is teaching you how to teach vibe coding to dogs, to educate you.
Sounds great to me. Software devs might lose their jobs but billions of people will be empowered to spin up whatever software they need on demand. This is the future I dreamed of when I was a kid, and I'm not so cynical as to let the dying of a trade sour me to this objectively incredible technology.
Nobody gives a damn about the dying of a trade. People don’t want their house foreclosed on when they lose their income, or their cancer to kill them when they lose their health insurance, to move an elderly parent into a cheap shitty old folks home because they can’t afford home health care, or not be able to pay for their kid to go on that school field trip. This would all be pretty fucking swell if the fundamental…
You act as if this is the first time in history technology has wiped out a trade and made people scramble to sort out their lives. No, this has been happening over and over again throughout history and at a rapidly accelerating pace since the industrial revolution. Why should we ask it to slow down on behalf of programmers, when it never did for anybody else? Don't pretend you didn't know this was a possibility when you got into tech in the first place. You might have to downsize your life but humanity as a whole will be better off.
Sounds great to me. Software devs might lose their jobs but billions of people will be empowered to spin up whatever software they need on demand. This is the future I dreamed of when I was a kid, and I'm not so cynical as to let the dying of a trade sour me to this objectively incredible technology.
>billions of people will be empowered to spin up whatever software they need on demand As long as: 1. They have access to a computer 2. They have affordable access to a capable language model 3. Someone will actually care about using their output instead of simply spinning up their own custom version of whatever idea they have The number 3 is something many people miss, especially on HN: Why would I want to use YOUR…
> Why would I want to use YOUR software if it's easy for me to cook up my own?
You're still in the mindset of thinking about software as something you sell to other people. Forget that crap. Software will be something you summon on demand to solve a specific problem you have. As long as people have problems that computers are good at solving, they'll keep using computers. What likely won't continue is computer programming as a career, but so what?
Sounds great to me. Software devs might lose their jobs but billions of people will be empowered to spin up whatever software they need on demand. This is the future I dreamed of when I was a kid, and I'm not so cynical as to let the dying of a trade sour me to this objectively incredible technology.
> Billions of people will be empowered to spin up whatever software they need on demand. … so long as they have the money, and the power grid survives the overtaxation. After all, why bother encouraging a culture where people are genuinely empowered to tweak and create their tools? Why encourage a culture of exploration, of playful cleverness? What use is there to being a hacker, of sharing knowledge? It’s definitely…
Hardware will get better, local models will get better, it won't be very long until running a coding agent off a few solar panels on your roof is viable. And if this isn't true, then the future I envision probably isn't going to happen and you lot can stop worrying about your jobs.
I think this was the most important insight in the article: > I experimented with Rust/Bevy and Unity before settling on Godot. Bevy’s animations and visuals weren’t as crisp, and Claude struggled with its coordinate conventions - likely a combination of less training data and Bevy leaving many core features, like physics, to the community. Unity was a constant struggle to keep the MCP bridge between Claude and the e…
Also makes me wonder if we'll start seeing tools designed specifically to be LLM-legible
The human built the system, the AI did the implementation and the dog provided the "intent" even if that intent was just treat seeking randomness. It turns software creation into something that looks less like writing and more like cultivating
I think you would have gotten more generic games. The AI was clearly attempting to find meaning in what the dog typed, and that drove what it made. Now, if Anthropic let you adjust the temperature, then maybe you could have done it without the dog...
The AI cannot drive meaning from the dog's input because there's no useful information encoded in there. It's effectively a random string (if there's less randomness, it's just because it's a dog's paw physically pressing on a keyboard). All the relevant information was in the initial prompt and the scaffolding. The dog was not even /dev/random, it was simply a trigger to "give it another go".
The shapes of clouds and positions of stars are essentially random, and yet humans derive meaning from both. I agree you could have gotten the same results via /dev/random, or probably by increasing the temperature on the model, but I suspect doing one of those things is important.
Not really. You just found another way to tell Claude "I want a game, I am uncertain, let's randomly seed the start of the process.". But you did it circus-style :)