Stop selling “unlimited”, when you mean “until we change our minds”

There will always be people who know the difference and care about the difference. And are prepared to pay the premium for handcrafted furniture.

But the vast majority of people either won't care or don't know the difference - mostly because they've never experienced it. They just take it for grated that their IKEA cardboard stuff won't make it through a move and buy a new one.

And then there's the one person with the almost century old desk that was handmade from hardwood and is practically indestructible and fully repairable if something cracks.

Godot with AI was definitely a worse experience than usual for me. I did not use the Godot editor. It seems like the development flow for Godot however is based around it. Scenes were generated through a Python script, which was of course written by Claude Code. Personally, I reviewed no line of code during the process.

My findings afterwards are;

1) Code quality was not good. Personally I have a year of experience working with Unity and online the code examples tend to be of incredibly poor quality. My guess is if AI is trained on the online corpus of game development forums, the output should be absolutely terrible. For the field of game development especially AI is tainted with this poor quality. It did indeed not follow modern practices, even after having hooked up a context MCP which provides code examples.

2) It was able to refactor the codebase to modern practices upon instructing it to; I told it to figure out what modern practices were and to apply them; it started making modifications like adding type hints and such. Commonly you would use predefined rules for this with an LLM tool, I did not use any for my experiment. That would be a one-time task after which the AI will prefer your way of working. An example for Godot can be found here: https://github.com/sanjeed5/awesome-cursor-rules-mdc/blob/ma...

3) It was very difficult to debug for Claude Code. The platform seems to require working with a dedicated editor, and the flow for debugging is either through that editor or by launching the game and interacting with it. This flow is not suitable at the moment for out of the box Claude Code or similar tools which need to be able to independently verify that certain functions or features work as expected.

> Do you work on web applications? I've found that GPT tools get pretty stupid once you stop working with HTML/JS.

Not really - I work on developer experience and internal developer platforms. That is 80~90% Python, Go, Bash, Terraform and maybe a 10~20% Typescript with React depending on the project.

Okay, I think I got your intent better, thanks for clarifying.

You can add discussion with other people outside software media, or opinion pieces outside media (I would not include personal blogs in "media" for instance, but would not be bothered if someone did), including people who tried and people who didn't. Medias are also not uniform in their views.

But I hear you, grounded perspectives would be a positive.

> That for it to result in good outcomes for humanity, it requires good people to help shape it in its formative years.

I hear you as well, makes perfect sense.

OTOH, it's difficult to engage into something that feels fundamentally wrong or a dead end, and that's what LLMs feel like to me. It would be also frightening: the risk that, as a good person, you help shape a monster.

The only way out I can see is inventing the thing that will make LLMs irrelevant, but also don't have their fatal flaws. That's quite the undertaking though.

We'd not be competing on an equal footing: LLM providers have been doing things I would never have dared even considering: ingesting considerable amount of source materials completely disregarding their licenses, hammering everyone servers, spending a crazy amount of energy, sourcing a crazy amount of (very closed) hardware, burning an insane amount of money even on paid plans. It feels very brutal.

Can an LLM be built avoiding any of this stuff? Because otherwise, I'm simply not interested.

(of course, the discussion has shifted quite a bit! The initial question was if a dev not using the LLMs would remain relevant, but I believe this was addressed at large in other comments already)

Beef has the benefit of seeing an end, though. Populations are stabilizing, and people are only ever going to eat so much. As methane has a 12 year life, in a stable environment the methane emissions today simply replace the emissions from 12 years ago. The carbon lifecycle of animals is neutral, so that is immaterial. It is also easy to fix if we really have to go to extremes: Cull all the cattle and in 12 years it is all gone!

Whereas AI, even once stabilized, theoretically has no end to its emissions. Emissions that are essentially permanent, so even if you shut down all AI when you have to take extreme measures, the effects will remain "forever". There is always hope that we'll use technology to avoid that fate, but you know how that usually goes...