216
After GOTY pull, Clair Obscur devs draw line in sand over AI: 'Everything will be made by humans by us' (www.polygon.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/games@sh.itjust.works
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Just to point out, LLMs are genAI. Lots of code editors provide code suggestions similar to autocorrect/text suggestions using AI. Strictly I doubt any game is made without AI. Not to say it can't be deliberately avoided, but given the lack of opposition to GPT and LLMs I don't see it being considered for avoidance in the same way as art.

So Awards with constraints on "any AI usage in development" probably disqualifies most modern games.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Code analysis and suggestion tools in many professional IDEs are not powered by LLMs, in the IDEs I use, there's an available LLM that I've disabled the plugin for (and never paid for so it did nothing anyways). LLMs are simply too slow for the kind of code completion and recommendation algorithms used by IDEs and so using them is not "using genAI"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Uh... Sorry but no, LLMs are definitely fast enough. It works just like auto complete, except sometimes it's a genius that pulls the next few lines you were about to write out of the ether, and sometimes it makes up a library to do something you never asked for

    Mostly it works about as well as code completion software, but it'll name variables much better

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I believe you that genAI is being used for code suggestions, but I wouldn’t call it a genius.

    This is anecdotal but over the last couple of years I’ve noticed Visual Studio’s autocomplete went from suggesting exactly what I wanted more often than not to just giving me hot garbage today. Like even when I’m 3-4 lines in to a very obvious repeating pattern it’ll suggest some nonsense variation on it that’s completely useless. Or just straight making up variable and function names that don’t exist, or suggesting inputs to function calls that don’t match the signature. Really basic stuff that any kind of rules-based system should have no problem with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I wouldn't call it a genius either, it's just all over the place. Sometimes it's scary good and predicts your next move, most of the time it's just okay, sometimes it's annoyingly bad

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    My last job was on a fairly large typescript codebase (few hundred Klocs) which we started some time before LLMs were a thing. While we weren't into academic engineering patterns and buzzwords, we were very particular in maintaining consistent patterns across the codebase. The output of Copilot, even with early models which were far from today's standards, was often scarily accurate. It was far from genius but i'm still chasing that high to this day, to me it really indicated that we had made this codebase readable and actionable even by a new hire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    Autocomplete in IDEs use LSP. It's a rite of passage to manually setup your own if you use vim.

    They are most often just a local database server and client written in C++

    Highly recommend you code your own ngl it's a really fun project.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    VSCode autocomplete is literal AI now, they don’t have intellisense

    Others will follow, making “no AI” software really difficult to prove

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    "Ai" does not exist.

    There is no such thing. It does not exist at presence. Full stop.

    Genetic algorithms and complex algorithms are neat. They're useful tools. They're not "ai", they're algorithms. It's fine.

    Large X models and diffusion models are bullshit machines. They were invented as bullshit machines. They are scams. Their evangelists are scammers. They do not 'generate' except in the way aspark gap jammer 'generates'. They're noise machines.

    You do not know what the fuck you're talking about. You are a cultist. Go back to sexting with ELIZA.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent