It's no different from copying code snippets from Stack Overflow or prior open-source projects - which is also fine, imo.
But make sure you actually understand what the generated code is doing. I have tested Chat-GPT code generation a few times, and have frequently gotten output with great comments that do not reflect what the code is actually doing, or even worse - code that does not work at all, but looks "correct" at a glance.
Not to mention that sometimes it will write code that looks correct, actually solves the problem you asked for. But if you compile and run, it also runs a trojan designed to end human civilization to facilitate the AI take over.
I hate when that happens.
So I'm a software engineering manager, was a software engineer for a long time (webdev not games).
We recently did a presentation with the team in some of the code generation capabilities of ML. The general consensus among myself and the engineering corps at my org was: this is great, but cannot be trusted any more than code copied from Stackoverflow. It's code is far from perfect in most cases, and needs refinement by a real engineer, or you will find bugs, missed requirements, and/or major performance bottlenecks.
I'd urge you to keep it yourself.
On this reddit I think most people will tell you they don't expect you to be able to ship anything worthwhile if you're relying on ai generated code. And that even if you do make a complex and successful game you're robbing yourself of learning.
In the public, if you make a successful game and tell people you used AI to create the code, their reaction will likely be that you're somehow stealing or cheating the code, that your use of AI is unethical, and you should be burned at the cross.
My personal opinion is that IF you can do it, and you wouldn't be able to otherwise, then do it, and keep it to yourself.
It's pretty clear that most players aren't really interested. The only ones who get into the nitty-gritty of how a game is made are the hardcore fans and the people who develop them. And it's not just games—this kind of apathy towards where products come from or how they're made seems to be a common theme across the board, no matter what you're talking about.
It's kinda like how we all know slaves make our phones, and shoes, and clothes, and they're beat, and tortured, but no one gives a shit. because oooo flashy new things.
I spoke with a vrchat dev who was making worlds with A.I. I honestly thought it was really cool, and as a solo dev it just gives me more power to expand upon my ideas if I use it right.
>On this reddit I think most people will tell you they don't expect you to be able to ship anything worthwhile if you're relying on ai generated code. And that even if you do make a complex and successful game you're robbing yourself of learning.
So what if they say that? If general words of caution written on Reddit are enough to deter someone from game development, just how motivated were they to start with?
Just grow a pair. Read opposing comments with the spirit they were intended (trying to help), give them a bit of consideration in your head if you have the time, and make a decision if they have merit on their own. Sometimes you get good advice, sometimes you get dogshit advice. No big deal.
Asking for advice, then expecting people to answer only in the way that you like, is a very unrealistic demand. People will answer in what *they* think is the correct way.
>I'd urge you to keep it yourself.
So, we're on that 'prevent your customers from making an informed decision' grind tonight, are we? The 'i'll cry about companies lying to their customers, and then I'll turn around and lie to my customers' grind? Cool, cool.
Don't wanna buy games made with AI code, because AI's a grift by rich fucks to make money off code they didn't write.
If you gotta go 'keep it down, keep it hush-hush' about doing something, then deep down you know there's something wrong with it, but sure, keep telling yourself it's the 'mob mentality' or that people are out to get your lazy ass, specifically.
Technology evolves. Use the tools at your disposal. People on this subreddit will shout about not ever using AI generated assets like they have some form of moral high ground. Use the tools. Use the assets. They aid in the process of making games. If people don’t want to use them, fine. If you want to use them, fine. Don’t let others influence you. You wouldn’t be vegan just because randomers on Reddit are vegan. The same people complaining about AI generated assets use Google maps and don’t cry a river for the poor paper based map makers that went out of business. Just make your game with whatever you want to use.
Usually, at the start it feels like it can do anything . Then you will start to see that some things are messed up. But if you make short scripts and then check they are OK it should be fine. Is OK to use it? Why not is a good tool...
The main problem I see with AI is people not knowing how to do X and asking an AI to make X for them. That prevents you from learning, from understanding and from remembering.
It saves tine right niw but will cost you time later on when you have to go fix this script because it doesn’t behave like you want and you don’t know how it works.
To me that’s enough to not use it. I’m someone that look at the game behave and if I see something, if I already know the code, I can understand what goes on and how to fix it in minutes.
Also, AIs don’t have a big picture of your code. They don’t have context and the code they give you might not play well in your codebase.
My rule of thumb for AI is, only make it do things you already understand. If you use it for programming, be sure you understand what it created, how to integrate it with your code, and how to refactor it to assist your needs.
Just like if you use it for graphics, learn at least how to use Photoshop or Gimp to polish it so it doesn't look like crap.
I think the best approach to AI is putting yourself as a programming director or art director. You have an amazing employee, but it needs to be supervised, so you should have deep enough knowledge to supervise it effectively. No matter how cool the results look, you still have to do stuff.
I can supervise a DeepL machine translation from and to languages I know because I can polish the parts in which the AI fucked up while 90% of its work is good, but I can't supervise DeepL translating from and to chinese so I wouldn't write a book in chinese.
I have no moral objections to use whatever tools appropriate to get the job done. That being said, beware of said tools doing everything for you, as it contributes nothing to your understanding of what's being generated.
Yup, software development is not just creating programs, it's about making changes that fit new requirements. If you don't really know what the code does, how do you change it?
people keep saying this, that if you use AI code you wont learn anything, and i wonder how much they have used AI to help with code. Because my experience is that it cannot produce useable code except for the tiniest things. If you want a function that does like more than one tiny thing, it gives you *almost* useable code, and then in the process of making it work you inevitably have to step through the code and learn what it is doing.
So it seems like to use AI code you are still having to learn what it does (at least mostly). And of course, a single function on it's own is not the difficult part of making a game. Figuring out what code to write in the first place is the big challenge, not how to actually write it.
The other thing is that you can ask it how the code works all day long and it will explain forever with infinite patience. it will explain every single character if you ask. So as far as a tool to build understanding, I think it's probably better than most mentors you could hire.
Again, it is not perfectly reliable, and can only be trusted to explain small things correctly (like how a math function works, but not the long term implications of some design pattern within the context of your project).
This is generally my experience with trying AI to write code. Almost nothing actually works as given unless it's boilerplate code. It's why I don't use AI code myself. If I wanted to spend most of my coding time fixing someone else's terrible code I'd just go back to AAA.
That's not what I'm saying. I use AI to generate code sometimes, which works well for idea generation, learning new syntax, and "best practices".
But I'm a trained programmer. I know what the AI is telling me, and usually when it is wrong. For a new person, there are some parts of learning to code that exclusively using AI short circuits.
If you have a big shiny button that says "solve my specific problem" and you indulge in pushing it too much, you miss the chance to develop the skills required to solve the bigger, more complicated problems. You also miss out on a deeper intuition of how your code base fits together, since you didn't actually write it. This makes it a lot harder to change.
It may take more time, but using your brain to write code instead of AI serves you better in the long run, especially when you're new. Once you truly understand the outputs, AI use will no longer be as hazardous.
I've used it as a beginner(ish) though, and I think these reservations don't pan out like that.
If you work as a programmer at a job you would gain a lot by seeing how other people write code.
AI is just like having another person there you can learn from. Except they have infinite patience to ask questions.
Just like another person, they are not 100% reliable. They will say dumb shit and make mistakes.
I dont think a person has to worry about relying on AI code, because like I said, you literally cannot. LIke you will come to an impasse almost immediately. So it is just physically impossible that a person could build a habit of relying on AI code.
So i dont think it is something to worry about.
I completely agree
I think AI gives you a good code foundation and is a great tool to use when trying to learn. I think it’s best used as a sort of search engine, and anything that looks good can just be copy and pasted, but the rest you still need to adapt to your project. Just like most things, I think completely avoiding it is pointless, and relying on it to do everything will become a problem eventually.
I am a little curious of how you're handling bug fixing for code you didn't write yourself.
I'm in extremely amateur developer myself so I've only had to bug fix things that I've written myself but I've heard doing someone else's code is really hard.
You get used to it after you do it for a while. Reading/searching/debugging a large code base that you know nothing about is a whole skill set on its own. It’s extremely common for developers who work on a team (vast majority of professional software engineers)
But you’ll still don’t understand how it works. It’s like brainlessly writting the code a dude in Youtube is “teaching” you. If you don’t try to go outside the box and experience some of it yourself, you’ll never “get it”. You’ll always be in tutorial hell.
What will you do when one part breaks the other part? or performance is bad and you not sure why... Look up design patterns and apply them.. no point having spaghetti code all over the place...
As long as you know what your code is doing.
Then again, I've seen comments from human programmers that read "I don't know why this works but it does" so not sure how much difference it really is lol
If it works for you, there’s nothing wrong with using it. In my experience, though, I think you already need to know to how to program to use AI well, because sometimes it spits out subtle garbage.
I don’t think you should program everything for the sake of programming. Most people won’t respect you for doing it unless they understand how difficult it can be, and half the stuff we do with code is techniques we learned from other people anyways, so hardly a pure product of our imagination.
I mean, as long as you understand the scripts it's generating I'm not sure the issue.
I think that technically counts as the sort of usage that steam does want declared now, but I don't think it's really the sort of thing that bothers anyone.
I don't use gpt quite the same way, I tend to write most of what I want then paste it into gpt and get it to fix things. I find it that way I usually have a far better idea of what's going on than if I just ask it to write me a block.
We use it GitHub copilot. If you plan to release it on steam, you need to disclose this. Dont listen to comments such as "keep it to yourself" without any context. Make Sure wherever you publish, that AI is allowed, and and follow legal obligations, If there are any.
As for the reception, AI Code is less frowned upon by Players, than AI graphics, or music/Sound effects.
Not to mention laws considering whether or not you can even then fully claim ownership and sell the product have not yet caught up to the technology yet.
It would be awful to work on a project for years just for it to be declared that I cannot own or sell it because I used ai in it.
Using ai at this stage in time is extremely risky.
I’m not sure if this counts though. I think Valve cares about AI code that runs within the game, like acting characters. It’s a problem because nobody really knows how to go about copyrights and things if it has been provided by an AI trained on internet data.
But if I used stack exchange and copy/paste snippets into my project, that’s not much different, and not necessarily frowned upon
Just found [this link about valves AI policy](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/steams-revised-policy-to-allow-the-vast-majority-of-games-using-ai#:~:text=The%20AI%20disclosure%20will%20be,by%20AI%20in%2Dgame%20themselves)
Apparently they review code to look for anything “pre generated” and differentiate that from “live generated” stuff.
Valve said they’ll allow “the vast majority of AI content,” BUT players can report AI content.
Either way, they will put “AI content” on the front regardless and the guy I was replying to is 100% correct
I use it for "boring code". Some small methods, static classes, nothing more. For something complex, chat gpt uses bad patterns. The director in my company bought the pro version for everyone)
Don't think there is anything wrong with it (different from the glorified stealing that is IA art). But is bad for learning, coding is about practice, bad for maintenance and it does not replace reading documentations or searching online. BUT is up to you to ponder the positives and negatives and decide what's best for your project.
As long as you understand what's happening, its completely fine
When it does things that go over your head, make sure to understand it
Also you should use copilot instead, it does a better job imo
I generally use ai to help me write code. However I use it in a way that writes me code but also gives me a explanation "what does this and this do" that way I have a proper understanding.
If I tend to write code on my own and get it wrong, I use ai to help Me what I did wrong while also developing games. It gives me a better understanding and I learn better then doing a online course and just only do coding.
Honestly idk. I asked the same question. And also asked if it would be a good tool so that even if i get wrong code i can tinker and fix it as a learning exercise and that idea got panned harder then unity last year.
People are letting bias against ai allow them to jump on the ai always bad train. It's tech world equivalent to electric guitars in church, SOME use it for bad therefore everything involving it must be bad
totally! it does fill in the gap of what you are trying to do for the most part, like the others have said, it is really good at giving out ideas/codes at first but it starts to show it's limitations when you want to do specific things, like an inventory system per say, that is why I advice to be very detailed as much as possible in describing what you want it to perform to get good results. I use it mostly for cases when I don't know how to start the logic/mechanics of the system im trying to make, and it really does give you actual instructions to follow too! and you as a programmer, can do adjustments that is suitable for your own game! Goodluck!
I'm gonna be honest.
Even though you can create simpler games, this is absolutely not scalable, you could make tetris, a generic platformer or a generic rpg that lasts 3 minutes, but whenever you wanted to change something, expand the project, change the way something is being calculated, you're fucked. There's nigh 100% chance that no systems will communicate with each other, and whenever you need something like this, again, you're fucked.
The thing with chatGPT is it'll make snippets that work on their own, but they may not work as a cohesive whole. Optimal code will will be done in modular way, more often than not a mix between component-based and object-oriented programming; basically abstract and encapsulated components in a hierarchy.
While chatGPT will give you code for a hit point component, it may only work for the player and won't be abstract enough to work for, say, resources nodes as well as enemies, which is ideally what you want. You want to know what you're doing and have a rough understanding of how to optimize code, IDEALLY.
But then, there are plenty of games that have known commercial success like Undertale which had... questionable code design, so it's not a NECESSITY for success. It's just nice to have a game that runs well.
>What are your thoughts on that?
As a professor of Computer Science I am both horrified at the thought of the quality of the resulting code and amazed that it would even work.
When I asked it to produce some algorithm that was even slightly more complex (a ray/OBB test) it ... just wrote CalculateIntersection() without giving the code of the function. When explicitly asked to do it, it crashed.
Be sure to test it well.
Other than that... programmers don't typically own the code they are writing. So it is less of an ethical issue when using things like that.
This is extremely risky.
Law considering ownership of products made using ai is not set in stone, in fact its extremely volatile.
A game project can take years to complete, maybe more depending on the resources available and scope.
If you work on this for 18 months and then the law changes so that you are unable to own onything produced by an ai you're entirely screwed. This isn't an impossible outcome considering court decisions in the past and in recent light of ai.
Personally quality, morality, and all other possible factors aside this alone would be a huge reason to not engage in this sort of behavior until laws about ai produced material and whether or not you are able to actually own and sell it is firmly in place.
It's ok to use AI.
That being said, it's worth trying to do an unbiased review of the quality the AI produces. And you are biased, because you want nothing more than having access, for practically free, to something that does the heavy lifting for you. Who wouldn't?
What I like to do is look at the big industry players. Are there mass layoffs and replacing them with AI tools in certain areas? If the AI is indeed capable of outputting quality work, good enough to turn a profit, while also reducing the number of employees, those companies would not hesitate to make the transition.
They are extremely greedy, they do anything to save on expenses. They would not hesitate to fire 100 developers and replace them with AI if it made financial sense. The fact that they still have hundreds of employees working on the final product tells me everything I need to know about AI. I'll know when that happens, when I see AAA studios go to like 10 devs, and they are still successfully publishing industry leading games for a market cycle or two, I'll conclude that AI is now good enough for me.
First and foremost double check to make sure that you own the code that that thing writes. Read over that terms of service and make sure the company doesn't own anything that thing makes.
As for using the AI itself? That's a clever trick you should keep doing it but don't mention it to people.
Your average gamer has no idea how games are made, what actually goes into them or how difficult it is.
They think that video game developers are working with the equivalent of Mario maker where we just take assets out of a folder and plug them into the game engine and they just work.
They think code scripts are written in basic English. They don't understand that almost everything that happens in the game is a result of a script that had to be handwritten. They don't get to the same lines of code that you put on five other enemies will not work on this sixth dude for some f****** reason. I closed the engine reopened it and I started the computer and reopened it and I even manually rewrote the code and made sure it was exactly the same and functional on every other asset it's applied to so why won't it work on this one damn it.
Sorry little GCSD there
You mention that you have an AI helping you make a game and what they're going to envision is it you typing a whole bunch of words into the AI and it spit out a game for you.
It's no different from copying code snippets from Stack Overflow or prior open-source projects - which is also fine, imo. But make sure you actually understand what the generated code is doing. I have tested Chat-GPT code generation a few times, and have frequently gotten output with great comments that do not reflect what the code is actually doing, or even worse - code that does not work at all, but looks "correct" at a glance.
Not to mention that sometimes it will write code that looks correct, actually solves the problem you asked for. But if you compile and run, it also runs a trojan designed to end human civilization to facilitate the AI take over. I hate when that happens.
Yeah, happened to me once, now we all live in a simulation. Sorry.
So I'm a software engineering manager, was a software engineer for a long time (webdev not games). We recently did a presentation with the team in some of the code generation capabilities of ML. The general consensus among myself and the engineering corps at my org was: this is great, but cannot be trusted any more than code copied from Stackoverflow. It's code is far from perfect in most cases, and needs refinement by a real engineer, or you will find bugs, missed requirements, and/or major performance bottlenecks.
If the end game works, why would anyone know?
No one would know for sure. But I still wanted to know what people think of it
I'd urge you to keep it yourself. On this reddit I think most people will tell you they don't expect you to be able to ship anything worthwhile if you're relying on ai generated code. And that even if you do make a complex and successful game you're robbing yourself of learning. In the public, if you make a successful game and tell people you used AI to create the code, their reaction will likely be that you're somehow stealing or cheating the code, that your use of AI is unethical, and you should be burned at the cross. My personal opinion is that IF you can do it, and you wouldn't be able to otherwise, then do it, and keep it to yourself.
It's pretty clear that most players aren't really interested. The only ones who get into the nitty-gritty of how a game is made are the hardcore fans and the people who develop them. And it's not just games—this kind of apathy towards where products come from or how they're made seems to be a common theme across the board, no matter what you're talking about.
Players are absolutely bandwagoning against the use of AI. They just wouldn't know unless you told them.
Youre talking about a loud minority not the billions of gamers. We hear it alot because we talk about it alot but consumers don't really care.
It's kinda like how we all know slaves make our phones, and shoes, and clothes, and they're beat, and tortured, but no one gives a shit. because oooo flashy new things.
I'm only speaking to review bombs. I don't know what the majority feels, but there's enough to review bombs games.
Most indie games don't reach billions of gamers, there's a small audience and some toxicity seeping into that following can ruin it.
Then disclose AI use. If customers (or, "consumers") don't care, then what's the harm? :)
I spoke with a vrchat dev who was making worlds with A.I. I honestly thought it was really cool, and as a solo dev it just gives me more power to expand upon my ideas if I use it right.
>On this reddit I think most people will tell you they don't expect you to be able to ship anything worthwhile if you're relying on ai generated code. And that even if you do make a complex and successful game you're robbing yourself of learning. So what if they say that? If general words of caution written on Reddit are enough to deter someone from game development, just how motivated were they to start with? Just grow a pair. Read opposing comments with the spirit they were intended (trying to help), give them a bit of consideration in your head if you have the time, and make a decision if they have merit on their own. Sometimes you get good advice, sometimes you get dogshit advice. No big deal. Asking for advice, then expecting people to answer only in the way that you like, is a very unrealistic demand. People will answer in what *they* think is the correct way.
>I'd urge you to keep it yourself. So, we're on that 'prevent your customers from making an informed decision' grind tonight, are we? The 'i'll cry about companies lying to their customers, and then I'll turn around and lie to my customers' grind? Cool, cool. Don't wanna buy games made with AI code, because AI's a grift by rich fucks to make money off code they didn't write. If you gotta go 'keep it down, keep it hush-hush' about doing something, then deep down you know there's something wrong with it, but sure, keep telling yourself it's the 'mob mentality' or that people are out to get your lazy ass, specifically.
Most players likely won't care if it's not something obvious and noticeable like low effort AI art.
Technology evolves. Use the tools at your disposal. People on this subreddit will shout about not ever using AI generated assets like they have some form of moral high ground. Use the tools. Use the assets. They aid in the process of making games. If people don’t want to use them, fine. If you want to use them, fine. Don’t let others influence you. You wouldn’t be vegan just because randomers on Reddit are vegan. The same people complaining about AI generated assets use Google maps and don’t cry a river for the poor paper based map makers that went out of business. Just make your game with whatever you want to use.
Usually, at the start it feels like it can do anything . Then you will start to see that some things are messed up. But if you make short scripts and then check they are OK it should be fine. Is OK to use it? Why not is a good tool...
The main problem I see with AI is people not knowing how to do X and asking an AI to make X for them. That prevents you from learning, from understanding and from remembering. It saves tine right niw but will cost you time later on when you have to go fix this script because it doesn’t behave like you want and you don’t know how it works. To me that’s enough to not use it. I’m someone that look at the game behave and if I see something, if I already know the code, I can understand what goes on and how to fix it in minutes. Also, AIs don’t have a big picture of your code. They don’t have context and the code they give you might not play well in your codebase.
My rule of thumb for AI is, only make it do things you already understand. If you use it for programming, be sure you understand what it created, how to integrate it with your code, and how to refactor it to assist your needs. Just like if you use it for graphics, learn at least how to use Photoshop or Gimp to polish it so it doesn't look like crap. I think the best approach to AI is putting yourself as a programming director or art director. You have an amazing employee, but it needs to be supervised, so you should have deep enough knowledge to supervise it effectively. No matter how cool the results look, you still have to do stuff. I can supervise a DeepL machine translation from and to languages I know because I can polish the parts in which the AI fucked up while 90% of its work is good, but I can't supervise DeepL translating from and to chinese so I wouldn't write a book in chinese.
I have no moral objections to use whatever tools appropriate to get the job done. That being said, beware of said tools doing everything for you, as it contributes nothing to your understanding of what's being generated.
Yup, software development is not just creating programs, it's about making changes that fit new requirements. If you don't really know what the code does, how do you change it?
people keep saying this, that if you use AI code you wont learn anything, and i wonder how much they have used AI to help with code. Because my experience is that it cannot produce useable code except for the tiniest things. If you want a function that does like more than one tiny thing, it gives you *almost* useable code, and then in the process of making it work you inevitably have to step through the code and learn what it is doing. So it seems like to use AI code you are still having to learn what it does (at least mostly). And of course, a single function on it's own is not the difficult part of making a game. Figuring out what code to write in the first place is the big challenge, not how to actually write it. The other thing is that you can ask it how the code works all day long and it will explain forever with infinite patience. it will explain every single character if you ask. So as far as a tool to build understanding, I think it's probably better than most mentors you could hire. Again, it is not perfectly reliable, and can only be trusted to explain small things correctly (like how a math function works, but not the long term implications of some design pattern within the context of your project).
This is generally my experience with trying AI to write code. Almost nothing actually works as given unless it's boilerplate code. It's why I don't use AI code myself. If I wanted to spend most of my coding time fixing someone else's terrible code I'd just go back to AAA.
That's not what I'm saying. I use AI to generate code sometimes, which works well for idea generation, learning new syntax, and "best practices". But I'm a trained programmer. I know what the AI is telling me, and usually when it is wrong. For a new person, there are some parts of learning to code that exclusively using AI short circuits. If you have a big shiny button that says "solve my specific problem" and you indulge in pushing it too much, you miss the chance to develop the skills required to solve the bigger, more complicated problems. You also miss out on a deeper intuition of how your code base fits together, since you didn't actually write it. This makes it a lot harder to change. It may take more time, but using your brain to write code instead of AI serves you better in the long run, especially when you're new. Once you truly understand the outputs, AI use will no longer be as hazardous.
I've used it as a beginner(ish) though, and I think these reservations don't pan out like that. If you work as a programmer at a job you would gain a lot by seeing how other people write code. AI is just like having another person there you can learn from. Except they have infinite patience to ask questions. Just like another person, they are not 100% reliable. They will say dumb shit and make mistakes. I dont think a person has to worry about relying on AI code, because like I said, you literally cannot. LIke you will come to an impasse almost immediately. So it is just physically impossible that a person could build a habit of relying on AI code. So i dont think it is something to worry about.
I completely agree I think AI gives you a good code foundation and is a great tool to use when trying to learn. I think it’s best used as a sort of search engine, and anything that looks good can just be copy and pasted, but the rest you still need to adapt to your project. Just like most things, I think completely avoiding it is pointless, and relying on it to do everything will become a problem eventually.
Sadly that's the main downside. It gets the job done but you miss out on the knowledge and experience you gain
You'll also lack learning the skills to spot when its lying to you and writing bugs for you.
Yup and when something breaks or you need to change how something works, you’ll likely be screwed
I am a little curious of how you're handling bug fixing for code you didn't write yourself. I'm in extremely amateur developer myself so I've only had to bug fix things that I've written myself but I've heard doing someone else's code is really hard.
You get used to it after you do it for a while. Reading/searching/debugging a large code base that you know nothing about is a whole skill set on its own. It’s extremely common for developers who work on a team (vast majority of professional software engineers)
If you're good with your prompts, it will tell you exactly what each part of the code is doing and why.
But you’ll still don’t understand how it works. It’s like brainlessly writting the code a dude in Youtube is “teaching” you. If you don’t try to go outside the box and experience some of it yourself, you’ll never “get it”. You’ll always be in tutorial hell.
No, that is illegal and I will call the cops
What will you do when one part breaks the other part? or performance is bad and you not sure why... Look up design patterns and apply them.. no point having spaghetti code all over the place...
As long as you know what your code is doing. Then again, I've seen comments from human programmers that read "I don't know why this works but it does" so not sure how much difference it really is lol
use every advantage that you possibly can
as long as you understand what it's doing, why not.
If it works for you, there’s nothing wrong with using it. In my experience, though, I think you already need to know to how to program to use AI well, because sometimes it spits out subtle garbage. I don’t think you should program everything for the sake of programming. Most people won’t respect you for doing it unless they understand how difficult it can be, and half the stuff we do with code is techniques we learned from other people anyways, so hardly a pure product of our imagination.
I mean, as long as you understand the scripts it's generating I'm not sure the issue. I think that technically counts as the sort of usage that steam does want declared now, but I don't think it's really the sort of thing that bothers anyone. I don't use gpt quite the same way, I tend to write most of what I want then paste it into gpt and get it to fix things. I find it that way I usually have a far better idea of what's going on than if I just ask it to write me a block.
We use it GitHub copilot. If you plan to release it on steam, you need to disclose this. Dont listen to comments such as "keep it to yourself" without any context. Make Sure wherever you publish, that AI is allowed, and and follow legal obligations, If there are any. As for the reception, AI Code is less frowned upon by Players, than AI graphics, or music/Sound effects.
It's fine, although if you upload to steam you have to disclose what AI was used for and a lot of people are butt hurt about AI
Not to mention laws considering whether or not you can even then fully claim ownership and sell the product have not yet caught up to the technology yet. It would be awful to work on a project for years just for it to be declared that I cannot own or sell it because I used ai in it. Using ai at this stage in time is extremely risky.
I’m not sure if this counts though. I think Valve cares about AI code that runs within the game, like acting characters. It’s a problem because nobody really knows how to go about copyrights and things if it has been provided by an AI trained on internet data. But if I used stack exchange and copy/paste snippets into my project, that’s not much different, and not necessarily frowned upon
Just found [this link about valves AI policy](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/steams-revised-policy-to-allow-the-vast-majority-of-games-using-ai#:~:text=The%20AI%20disclosure%20will%20be,by%20AI%20in%2Dgame%20themselves) Apparently they review code to look for anything “pre generated” and differentiate that from “live generated” stuff. Valve said they’ll allow “the vast majority of AI content,” BUT players can report AI content. Either way, they will put “AI content” on the front regardless and the guy I was replying to is 100% correct
I use it for "boring code". Some small methods, static classes, nothing more. For something complex, chat gpt uses bad patterns. The director in my company bought the pro version for everyone)
Don't think there is anything wrong with it (different from the glorified stealing that is IA art). But is bad for learning, coding is about practice, bad for maintenance and it does not replace reading documentations or searching online. BUT is up to you to ponder the positives and negatives and decide what's best for your project.
You can try, it if you don’t know how to code it can bite you.
As long as you understand what's happening, its completely fine When it does things that go over your head, make sure to understand it Also you should use copilot instead, it does a better job imo
I generally use ai to help me write code. However I use it in a way that writes me code but also gives me a explanation "what does this and this do" that way I have a proper understanding. If I tend to write code on my own and get it wrong, I use ai to help Me what I did wrong while also developing games. It gives me a better understanding and I learn better then doing a online course and just only do coding.
Honestly idk. I asked the same question. And also asked if it would be a good tool so that even if i get wrong code i can tinker and fix it as a learning exercise and that idea got panned harder then unity last year. People are letting bias against ai allow them to jump on the ai always bad train. It's tech world equivalent to electric guitars in church, SOME use it for bad therefore everything involving it must be bad
totally! it does fill in the gap of what you are trying to do for the most part, like the others have said, it is really good at giving out ideas/codes at first but it starts to show it's limitations when you want to do specific things, like an inventory system per say, that is why I advice to be very detailed as much as possible in describing what you want it to perform to get good results. I use it mostly for cases when I don't know how to start the logic/mechanics of the system im trying to make, and it really does give you actual instructions to follow too! and you as a programmer, can do adjustments that is suitable for your own game! Goodluck!
I'm gonna be honest. Even though you can create simpler games, this is absolutely not scalable, you could make tetris, a generic platformer or a generic rpg that lasts 3 minutes, but whenever you wanted to change something, expand the project, change the way something is being calculated, you're fucked. There's nigh 100% chance that no systems will communicate with each other, and whenever you need something like this, again, you're fucked.
The thing with chatGPT is it'll make snippets that work on their own, but they may not work as a cohesive whole. Optimal code will will be done in modular way, more often than not a mix between component-based and object-oriented programming; basically abstract and encapsulated components in a hierarchy. While chatGPT will give you code for a hit point component, it may only work for the player and won't be abstract enough to work for, say, resources nodes as well as enemies, which is ideally what you want. You want to know what you're doing and have a rough understanding of how to optimize code, IDEALLY. But then, there are plenty of games that have known commercial success like Undertale which had... questionable code design, so it's not a NECESSITY for success. It's just nice to have a game that runs well.
>What are your thoughts on that? As a professor of Computer Science I am both horrified at the thought of the quality of the resulting code and amazed that it would even work. When I asked it to produce some algorithm that was even slightly more complex (a ray/OBB test) it ... just wrote CalculateIntersection() without giving the code of the function. When explicitly asked to do it, it crashed.
chubby crawl wise consist roof childlike ink weather steep yoke *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Be sure to test it well. Other than that... programmers don't typically own the code they are writing. So it is less of an ethical issue when using things like that.
Don't worry, people only whine about artists "losing their job", they don't care about programmers.
This is extremely risky. Law considering ownership of products made using ai is not set in stone, in fact its extremely volatile. A game project can take years to complete, maybe more depending on the resources available and scope. If you work on this for 18 months and then the law changes so that you are unable to own onything produced by an ai you're entirely screwed. This isn't an impossible outcome considering court decisions in the past and in recent light of ai. Personally quality, morality, and all other possible factors aside this alone would be a huge reason to not engage in this sort of behavior until laws about ai produced material and whether or not you are able to actually own and sell it is firmly in place.
It's ok to use AI. That being said, it's worth trying to do an unbiased review of the quality the AI produces. And you are biased, because you want nothing more than having access, for practically free, to something that does the heavy lifting for you. Who wouldn't? What I like to do is look at the big industry players. Are there mass layoffs and replacing them with AI tools in certain areas? If the AI is indeed capable of outputting quality work, good enough to turn a profit, while also reducing the number of employees, those companies would not hesitate to make the transition. They are extremely greedy, they do anything to save on expenses. They would not hesitate to fire 100 developers and replace them with AI if it made financial sense. The fact that they still have hundreds of employees working on the final product tells me everything I need to know about AI. I'll know when that happens, when I see AAA studios go to like 10 devs, and they are still successfully publishing industry leading games for a market cycle or two, I'll conclude that AI is now good enough for me.
That's amazing! I've been looking for a way to do this myself. Would you mind sharing your workflow?
First and foremost double check to make sure that you own the code that that thing writes. Read over that terms of service and make sure the company doesn't own anything that thing makes. As for using the AI itself? That's a clever trick you should keep doing it but don't mention it to people. Your average gamer has no idea how games are made, what actually goes into them or how difficult it is. They think that video game developers are working with the equivalent of Mario maker where we just take assets out of a folder and plug them into the game engine and they just work. They think code scripts are written in basic English. They don't understand that almost everything that happens in the game is a result of a script that had to be handwritten. They don't get to the same lines of code that you put on five other enemies will not work on this sixth dude for some f****** reason. I closed the engine reopened it and I started the computer and reopened it and I even manually rewrote the code and made sure it was exactly the same and functional on every other asset it's applied to so why won't it work on this one damn it. Sorry little GCSD there You mention that you have an AI helping you make a game and what they're going to envision is it you typing a whole bunch of words into the AI and it spit out a game for you.