In defense of giving a shit

xnorswap

The deliberate conflating of AI code and AI assets as equivalent in "AI declarations" is bad. The author here however goes further, and claims their argument against AI code is so strong, that they'd lose brain cells by actually making the argument, so we just have to accept that as fact. They then go on to suggest that using AI for bug fixing is terrible, and hints that people should feel ashamed for enjoying a game that has gone through that process.

asah

Banning AI is stupid and settled science - ban gravity, debt, the sun, electricity. Ban slop. Or better yet, don't "ban" anything - judge it like any low-effort crap.

lloydatkinson

On mobile the text is so large I feel like I’m giving my thumb a workout to scroll

spicyusername

Eventually we'll get over having this discussion. AI is here and it trivializes what used to be hard. Developing software used to require feats of skill and endurance, and we're used to judging software based on that. Now it doesn't. We will have to get used to judging software based on the output not on the input. Whether what was made is unique, interesting, creative, not whether it took a lot of time or knowledge. There is no going back, only forward.

tjohnell

I tried to finish reading this blog post, but couldn’t. Refreshingly, not because it was LLM-written, but because the author is clearly experiencing a visceral feeling toward AI-development, but they are incapable on breaking it down logically. Pure emotions. Not useful dialogue. Try again.

mekkkkkk

In the end there will be "software writers" and "software designers." Same difference as "jumper knitter" and "jumper designer." One is a delightful craft, the other is a profession. It's great to have a competition in software writing.

superultra

This article hooked me when it mentioned Big Wall, because Big Walk is easily one of the best games I’ve played in years. It sounds like this author’s argument is “AI in games sucks for lots of reason but mostly because it robs people of jobs.” I don’t disagree with that in theory but the real question is whether House House would have actually hired another human. My guess is that they would’ve either delayed it more, or not known about the bugs and released it. They are purposefully small and bringing on even a freelancer introduces a lot of complexity and room for error. So too does AI but ultimately you control the output. You don’t have to worry about it being late, or it having a bad day. If the end result of using AI is an artful, beautiful game like Big Wall, I’m all for it. In my opinion the metric shouldn’t be whether AI was used, it should be whether the end result is *good*. I realize that’s subjective but I think we can objectively say Big Walk is a wonderful, artful game. When AI is used and the output is bad - as was the case, say, with those Coca Cola or McDonalds ads - that’s when we should question it. When it’s being used for artwork or writing - I also think that’s a valid argument against it because it is, as we all know, utilizing artwork and writing without consent. Is that true for code? Maybe some code but we would all say, I think, it’s much looser around code than creative outputs like artwork and writing. It sounds like House House used AI like a tool the same way they did whatever engines or coding tools they used. The metric should be quality.

themgt

I contend that we are both Amish. I just believe in one fewer technological revolution than you do.

seki285

Normies have no taste anymore so I don't get what's the big deal around AI, they don't care and they don't deserve better. If you aren't immediately turned off by something like Big Walk at first glance then... just enjoy it I guess but don't ask too many questions.

rc-1140

I don't disagree that AI in gamedev is ethically dubious in the context of developing something that leans more artistic versus interactive, but the entire premise of an article like this is that you're supposed to spill the beans and tell us the dubious opinions. I don't disagree that AI used to develop artistic assets should be grounds for an entry to be barred from the IGF. I think the code portion, however, requires some specificity. To me, it's not ok if the code that powers gameplay or artistic rendering of assets is AI generated. That kind of code carries human intent and is part of the art of game development: the dev wants a player to encounter a certain kind of experience. There's no point or meaning if there's no developer dictating the experience by hand, if you're prompting this you might as well just admit you're trying to make a gimmicky asset flip "object simulator" to make a quick buck. On the other hand, I think it's ok to use it as a tool and as tooling: trivial tests at all levels should absolutely be automated, figuring out engine quirks or getting second opinions on architecture with AI assistance is fine, figuring out your build and deployment pipelines. --- Another point that I want to mention: there's a strange form of writing prevalent among both software devs and those in the art space that's stilted; a mishmosh of Tumblr rantposting and slashdot/IRC snark and sarcasm, signaling that they've the mental maturity of a junior in American high school. It's all about emotion (this sucks!) rather than addressing the root of a problem. This type of person is extremely difficult to deal with as they're the same type of person who encounters a brownfield codebase and immediately spends their time afterward whinging about how "the codebase must be burned and rewritten"; they must be micromanaged lest you set them off. The author mentions freelancers and such, and how there's a lot of "lip service about how [they're] 'all in this together'" but frankly what I see in the case of House House is a team who wants to keep things within the team. Regardless of their size, House House is a team on a timeline and budget, why should they be subjected to scrambling budget and conducting an interview process for someone who may or may not be a "brownfield rager"?

disillusionist

My personal opinions on AI and AI usage in software development have fluctuated in the past year, especially as I've used it more in my professional work. As AI becomes more deeply embedded in the tools that I use, I struggle to identify a hard line on what "Made with AI (tm)" actually means . If I'm using it for refactoring work as basically a glorified "find-and-replace" or to help me track down the cause of tricky bugs through trace files, does that make my work "made with AI"? (I think "yes it does" and would follow up with "but does it matter?") If I send an agent to complete a JIRA ticket on a system that I designed, read the diff, and approve the changes - does that invalidate my prior design and development work? (I think "no".) If I use a website builder, a 3rd party library, or one more abstraction layer past what is currently acceptable, should that change how others or I feel about that project? I'm not really sure, but since I work on business software I don't think my customers really care about how the sausage is made; they're mostly looking for results. I do, however, see a massive difference between "AI as tools" and "AI as creative director". I agree with the mindset of "I want to hear stories from humans" and "I want to experience creative expression from humans". But some of the current discussion feels like the arguments we had back in the day of whether Photoshop/digital media/video games were "real art" or not. If a human has creative vision and uses a robot stir-er to mix their paints, I don't think that should invalidate their painting. We can still judge it, though.

GMoromisato

Does IGF want to reward human achievement or recognize the best indie games? Both are viable paths. Chess tournaments reward human achievements, for example. But I agree with the OP that it's unfair to not be clear on their criteria. No matter which IGF chooses, I believe awards will ultimately bifurcate: some other contest will emerge for the other side. I don't think that's bad, nor do I think allowing AI means "not giving a shit."

stefs

regarding having to declare AI code: it's pretty much impossible to determine whether 3rd party code (i.e. libraries, frameworks, etc) use AI - and they don't have to declare it either. so either you ban 3rd party code completely - which would probably the end of the whole thing, because writing everything from scratch would probably not be achievable for any game developer with the some exceptions. if they don't ban AI code in 3rd party code, you could just circumvent the whole thing by outsourcing a few developers to be part-time 3rd party in name only and let them do the AI development, which would be against the spirit but not against the law.

jarnagin

As a consumer of games, I honestly don’t care much about how the game is made. AI vs non-AI is pure inside baseball. I just want to play good games, and I think the market will settle discussions of quality in the same way it always has.

apercu

It's not just "giving a shit" though that's part of it. The fact is, the more I know about a topic the less capable LLMs appear to me. The less I know about a topic, the more capable LLMs appear. At the end of the day, save for very specific tasks, there's still a lot of hype.

captainclam

Wooow. As a total outsider, I did NOT realize how strong the anti-AI sentiment in game dev was. The extent of AI use, which the author does not dispute, sounds really, really mild, i.e. "...they [House House] had used LLMs for "less than 0.1% of the code" to fix errors late in production." And this is still characterized as a "mistake". I have no objection to this perspective, I am not part of this community and completely respect the efforts of any group to preserve an AI-free space for their particular discipline. But surely a community built around a standard of 100% AI-free will quickly become quite niche, no? Especially when AI is used in a fashion that is absolutely orthogonal to the actual substance, like in this case where it corrected some bugs late in production. EDIT: I wrote this comment before finishing the article. Author goes on to address exactly my thoughts: "I'm trying to channel the energy I have into supporting spaces where other ways of using, thinking about and making technology can exist."

VCFundedGenYer

AI has no place in creative media such as games, art, music, video production, etc. It is the correct move to ban and shame AI use in those fields.

dofm

Recent news about pushback against AI slop in craft fairs on a smallish, rather artsy and community-driven Scottish island feels relevant: https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2026/08/28/no-questions-for-shetl... https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2026/11/10/ai-diminishes-the-work... https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2026/11/10/use-needs-addressed-cr... https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2026/11/11/committee-member-quits...

falcor84

First off, I just one to say that while I'm strongly on the other side of this argument, and in favor of heavy AI use for dev work, I really appreciated the article and the way it makes its case. My main point of contention is really with this: > House House is not a studio that couldn't afford to hire a specialist for a few days to look into this problem. I don't understand why there's this expectation that we have to throw people at every problem. Let's say that a dev faced with a difficult technical challenge in an area that they're not familiar with had instead gone to a library, and came out of it after 5h with a solution. Or alternatively, that they googled it and by having rolled the proverbial critical hit found an obscure blog post from 2005 with the exact solution to their problem. Would there really be a big difference? Why should we pay each other to do stuff for us that we can easily do with tools at a fraction of the time and cost? Can anyone make a strong argument against using AI for dev work that would not immediately lead to needing to bring back all the elevator operators?

happyopossum

This is a bit of an outlier, as we have a cross-pollination of art and programming. I've got very different opinions about using ai for art vs coding, and it feels weird to me to place what amounts to artificial constraints on a team developing a game. You run the risk of turning an indie games competition into one of those coding challenges where you have to fit something in 2kb, or write it in 24 hours. Interesting, but when do the constraints replace good gameplay as the goal?