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

411–419 of 419 posts

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

#411

Post by roflcopter69 »

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

Seeing what y'all write in the child comments here, I think there is a massive misconception. Games made with Godot can be deployed to mobile fairly easily. The recent "breakthrough" about Godot working on Android was about making the Godot editor (which itself is made with Godot) fully work on Android in the sense that it can actually build project there which is more about getting build tooling to work on an Android device than actually running the Godot engine on Android. Totally different things. For quite some time you can quite easily deploy your Godot game to mobile, it's not a real problem.

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

#412

Post by roflcopter69 »

maiybe wrote: post #248
ryan_n wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To gain Godot's level of indie marketshare, a single breakout engine project that embraces vibecoding could be enough. What are you basing this off of? There are already plenty of game engine projects like what you describe here. Doesn't seem to have affected Godot thus far, unless I'm missing something.

That's basically the same argument Unity made a few years ago. There isn't, until there is. These things take time. The tech has to be adopted, the people have to integrate into game jams, indies percolate. Godot is young, my predictions are 3-5 years. Regarding competition though, the question is about the unique selling points of Godot that would be hard to replicate. Before AI coding, there is a _lot of momentum_…

A serious competitor wouldn't use Rust because it immediately disqualifies your engine from being shipped to consoles. At least at the moment. I know it's less of a technical limitation and more of a political one, but if you are serious about shipping your game to various platforms, you cannot use Rust. But things might be about to change, see https://akaganite.com

But honestly, as of today, you're probably having a better time taking a few days to work out clean C++23 guidelines for your AI agents by letting them churn through all the changes and deprecations that happened to C++ over the years, figure out good clang-tidy and clang-format rules, turn on all the compiler warnings and tell them to regularly use UBSAN, ASAN and TSAN and you're getting really close to a clean workflow similar to what Rust would give you but with the rich platform support of C++. It's just kinda sad that one has to go through so much ceremony while the Rust ecosystem gives you those things for free. But imo a well-crafted AI agent workflow gets really close here.

Mean edit: I was reading more of your comments in this post and I start to think you're a bit of bullshitter who's quite overconfident because you think AI makes you so much more productive. I say this because any seasoned game engine dev wouldn't have suggested Rust for a game engine that is supposed to compete with Godot, Unity, Unreal or whatever due to missing consoles support, but you just did, which makes me suspect that you have really shallow understanding and really, AI won't help here. You could have at least mentioned that if you only target dektop and mobile then Rust is a good choice, but you didn't. But don't get me wrong, I'm quite AI pilled as well, but I still know that some things require expert knowledge to properly steer the AI agents.

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

#414

Post by basch »

overgard wrote: post #365
basch wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these projects should seamlessly run a fork in parallel that accepts AI and has AI for review and approval. Both camps are happy. Basically a play sandbox for contributors to not get jaded. A honeypot to contain the verbosity vomit, while also serving as positive public relations by keeping young contributor morale from starting in the basement. Everyone has been that person once early in their life who is told t…

What's the point of this fork if it's just a landing spot for stuff that's not really wanted? Wouldn't that just be more condescending then telling people what's actually required for a contribution? Besides, the nature of forking is you can just do it yourself anyway. If people love their AI changes they can just make their own fork. Plus I don't know how you could do this "seamlessly" -- someone has to manage merge…

>you can just do it yourself anyway.

But not with official branding.

> manage merge conflicts, and as the codebases diverge

not if you dont care if the sandbox diverges, and you just let the slop be slop.

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

#415

Post by JodieBenitez »

eschaton wrote: post #393
JodieBenitez wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no agreed-upon limits, everything is new there. And I don't prioritize feeling good over everything else, otherwise I just wouldn't even start the debate. Far from being fired, I was promoted, because the real world is not your fantasy, results matter more than theorical threats. Also keep your name-calling to yourself.

You literally said as much, and I am not calling you names, I am accurately describing your behavior in a way you yourself appear to recognize: > So yes, call me sociopath if you like, but I will lie, > produce better software and get the praises if I > have to work in an environment that values tools > and methods over results. You specifically said you would lie about how you work to get accolades if your employer…

> The appropriate reaction to your employer setting rules you don’t agree with is to try to convince them to change those rules,

And that's what I do: nothing is more convincing than great results.

Get off your high horse maybe.

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

#416

Post by eschaton »

JodieBenitez wrote: post #415
eschaton wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally said as much, and I am not calling you names, I am accurately describing your behavior in a way you yourself appear to recognize: > So yes, call me sociopath if you like, but I will lie, > produce better software and get the praises if I > have to work in an environment that values tools > and methods over results. You specifically said you would lie about how you work to get accolades if your employer…

> The appropriate reaction to your employer setting rules you don’t agree with is to try to convince them to change those rules, And that's what I do: nothing is more convincing than great results. Get off your high horse maybe.

What you’re calling a “high horse” is having morals and ethics. Your employer said not to do what you’re doing, so you either convince them to change their mind without doing something they explicitly said they don’t want you to do, or you go elsewhere. If you take the route of being a filthy fucking liar you aren’t in a position to accuse anyone of being on a high horse.

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

#417

Post by JodieBenitez »

eschaton wrote: post #393
JodieBenitez wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no agreed-upon limits, everything is new there. And I don't prioritize feeling good over everything else, otherwise I just wouldn't even start the debate. Far from being fired, I was promoted, because the real world is not your fantasy, results matter more than theorical threats. Also keep your name-calling to yourself.

You literally said as much, and I am not calling you names, I am accurately describing your behavior in a way you yourself appear to recognize: > So yes, call me sociopath if you like, but I will lie, > produce better software and get the praises if I > have to work in an environment that values tools > and methods over results. You specifically said you would lie about how you work to get accolades if your employer…

Blah blah blah.. virtue signaling. Enough said.

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

#418

Post by zacharylee »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #201

It's a really tricky one, but I think it's the right call for Godot, but probably not for other projects. I'm the current maintainer of GodotJS (TypeScript bindings for Godot). LLMs can generate genuinely useful solutions for Godot e.g. a functional WebGPU implementation for Godot — https://github.com/godotengine/godot-proposals/issues/6646 . However, as a senior engineer with fairly deep technical knowledge in these…

[flagged]

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

#419

Post by ytpete »

mexicocitinluez wrote: post #402
overgard wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really a question of how much time you're willing to spend sorting through spam. "No AI" might be a blunt hammer, but the people submitting slop aren't reading guidelines anyway, and it's easier just to reject it early. Frankly, I'm sure if people wanted to sneak in an AI generated code by carefully reviewing it and making sure it's targeted and well tested... I'm sure they could, but those people aren't the pro…

> Frankly, I'm sure if people wanted to sneak in an AI generated code by carefully reviewing it and making sure it's targeted and well tested But this is exactly the point I'm making. If the code is carefully reviewed, targeted, and tested, then why make people have to lie in order to submit PRs? Why not just say "Irresponsible use or agentic-based PR's will be auto-rejected"? And that's not even mentioning that tool…

> Why not just say "Irresponsible use or agentic-based PR's will be auto-rejected"? ... tools like Github Copilot can just act like fancy autocomplete.

For what it's worth, this is basically what the Godot policy does say. It's not a blanket ban:

> No autonomous AI agent use or vibe coding

> No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code ... AI assistance should be limited to menial things (like code completion, regex, or find and replace).

Post reply on HN