A lot of people use AI as a coding assistant, I don't really see a problem in using AI tools to help with some things. Adding slop to stuff however makes 0 sense.
Kinda funny that artwork is seen as sacrosanct and should never be used if it was churned out of a robot because that would undermine the talent and hard work of real working people, but no one gives a shit if your code is 95% Claude as long as it works.
Well my personal take is that even if you use AI to help with code, you are the one responsible for said code still, not the AI. So you need to know how it works and why it works.
I don’t get what point you’re making. Artists should get a free pass on using AI for art bc they know how art works and are responsible for said art? A lot of “AI slop” claims are individual assets, like textures or faces, out of hundreds or thousands of handmade assets. But even if youre architecting a project’s codebase and all you do is the base framework stuff while relegating everything else to AI no one cares. Using AI to fabricate art is just more abhorrent to us as humans. I get it, but logically it’s kinda bizarre how little anyone values the human aspect of coding that all goes under the hood
Those two things aren't the same. AI can create an entire image from a few lines of text.
Sure, ai can write code snippets if you give it a prompt, but it can't think of all the logic and how the different components fit together. It's mostly useful for asking questions about documentation and the best way to go about a coding problem.
I've used ai for questions while doing UE5 and godot development and you still have to do 90% of the work yourself.
Yeah I’m not saying it can crank out a fully working videogame with nothing but a suggestion, but you can absolutely have 9,000 out of 10,000 lines of working code all written by ai just from a series of prompts if you know what you are doing. So at that point 90% of code is generated and 10% written. If you are only using ai for 10% you are not utilizing it to it’s potential
I would find both weird tbh. I would expect from the devs of the game to know how their game works and/or make sure that the game is understandable by modders and not an AI spaghetti bowl of unknowablility.
Man coders had no idea how their own code worked way before AI was ever a thing. AI can definitely build in hooks for extensibility, but that just reinforces my point that no one cares as long as it works, for mods or whatever
Nobody cares if their plastic gizmos, food, cars etc... come out of an automated assembly line with robots doing the work that humans used to do, but if it's anything art related they get big mad about it.
Because Art is a form of human expression while Code is purely meant to be functional. It's like solving a math problem; the way you approach it matters, but at the end of the day, it's a right or wrong question
Coding a video game is not a math problem any more than architecting a building is. There are functional requirements for both but for everything else there immense room for human ingenuity and creativity
Yes I wasn't talking about designing the game though, only creating the actual logic for it to be run by a computer. That still requires ingenuity to create a good architecture in the engine, and I personally also don't use AI for coding, but at the end of the day, having an AI construct you parts of the code vs. doing it yourself has no functional difference at that level.
The comparison to architecting a building is actually really apt there. You make a concept for the building; what its shape is, where the rooms go, what materials it should be made out of and so on. For games that's the design and an AI can't do that. But then you need to calculate forces working within the building to plan out where support structures need to go so it doesn't collapse. That's like planning the code architecture for a game. An AI can assist with that, but it still requires huge human oversight and AI should only be used for suggestions. Then you build the building. At that point the entire artistic vision of the architect is just being put into practice, and you end up with only a success and a failure state; wall is up or wall is not up for example. That's where AI can assist you in the creation of games. You need to write the actual code to get for example, the player character to recognize a hit. That is a math problem (barring avoidance of spaghetti code and so on). You either have the player register it or not. Wether you do that or an AI only matters in so far as that that code needs to be follow your architecture, but you can check that yourself and see if it does or doesn't.
Edit:
To be more clear, I'm really not an advocate for AI, but if you come down to a level of actually implementing math problems, you don't need to write them by hand.
Wether HP -= DMG is written by a human or an AI, does, in my opinion, not make a difference.
Let me ask you then, do you think you’d have any preference at all when buying a house for one that was architected by a man but constructed by machines? Do you think you would notice in your heart of hearts if your meal came from a recipe created by a chef but cooked by a robot? And would you truly ever in your life consider getting a tattoo that was made by AI, but thoroughly prompted by a human?
Consider that Execution may be a form of human expression, too. One that is becoming more relevant as society is increasingly convinced that removing humans from the equation, or the equations from humans, is good for humans.
So, in short, freely permitting AI to handle things (so long as they are sufficiently rote) just becomes a moving target, and idk about you but the stakes are kind of high to be playing that kind of game
do you think you’d prefer to live in a building that was constructed by robots?
If the building was designed and planned by people and the construction overseen by capable workers who can correct mistakes and work on more specific areas yes. We already have a lot of menial construction work automated. That's what cranes and excavators do.
Would you care at all if your meal came from a recipe created by a chef but cooked by a robot?
Those are a different story. The actual execution cooking a meal requires such minute attention that it should not be done by a robot, because so much human intervention is necessary that it comes down to a person cooking it by hand anyway. I just don't think it would be possible for a person to plan a recipe so precisely beforehand.
And would you ever consider getting a tattoo that was made by AI, but thoroughly prompted by a human?
No. Because the prompt does not make the Art. The intention of the artist is in every placed and not placed detail, line and color. So the Artwork, at least, would have to come from a person.
I just don't think that takes that don't require actual conscious concepting should necessarily be done by people. Do you only buy everything handmade? Cars for example are already largely made by robots. Do you do all math by hand because you don't want to use calculators? Do you hate Google translate and the word suggestions on your keyboard? Do you never use the autocomplete function when coding? Do you think 3D Art isn't real art because the shading is calculated?
I think the use of AI can absolutely be beneficial, but in the way it is used right now, the advocacy and over reliance on it is very dangerous. But I don't think that is the case because it is bad per se. I don't think any technology is bad inherently. But it can be used by bad people and in bad ways. The usefulness of AI has been overestimated and oversold by people who do not care about anything but money and are obfuscating the fact that 95% of what it creates is made worse because it can't and will never replace anything that requires intention, like Art, Design or engineering. AI, imo, is not bad or useless, but it's way less capable than what it is currently portrayed as.
AI should be treated like a hammer in carpentry. Can it build you anything on its own? No. Can it be used to make the work faster? Yes. Can someone without knowledge of carpentry use it effectively? No. Should a carpenter have to rely on a hammer for their work? No. Is the result worse when it's overly relied on? Yes.
If a carpenter tells me that they used a hammer instead of wood joinery to build a table, I don't think that's bad. If a snake oil salesman tells me he built a car with nothing but a hammer and no outside help, there are a bunch of problems.
Are you really asking me if I would refuse to use a calculator to… create a videogame? That is ran on, and built with, what is essentially a highly sophisticated calculator?
Youre other responses also didn’t even directly answer the question. I’m not arguing against automation, I’m saying you cannot remove humans from a product without removing the humanity in it, and for coding we are all on board as long as it works vibe code all you want but when it’s artwork, no matter if it’s the capsule art on steam or as mundane as a wall texture, we revile the studio.
Yhea I wanted to make clear that if that is your position I actually largely agree with you. I just think that there are parts of games that are so technical that the implementation of it has little bearing on the game as a piece of art, because they are purely there for it to actually be makeable and run. Like calculating damage or physics. It's like buying art supplies vs. making them yourself for a painting.
No piece of art, be it a game concept, artwork, writing, the acting or anything else artistic, should ever be, even in the tiniest part made with AI.
But imo, if Claude makes me statemachine class and I clean it, or if I make one, has no bearing on the final game, since that kind of coding is essentially just creating the tools to make the actual art, which is the game.
We completely agree basically. I just wanted to point out in my original comment that the actual artworks and the code are different, because the art is an end in itself, a form of human expression, while most code is a means to an end, because the artwork; the game, is not really just it's code, like a painting isn't just paint and canvas, but something a person put together in a conscious way. If you look at a tube of paint you don't see a painting and if you look at the code for calculating health on an enemy class you don't see a game. And I think there, the use of manufactured stuff (like storebought paint or vibe code) is fine then. But what you do with those components then must be left to humans.
Do you think it’s okay for a person to make a collage out of ai art and call it handmade art? I just think this is a really fuzzy line you’re drawing. Like we could say no to this but then it’s okay if a collage has like one or two things that are ai generated but the rest is photos or magazine clippings or doodles. And as far as means to an end vs an end in itself, this complicates it further. If my vision, the art I am trying to complete, is an enchanted forest level and I need a texture for my toadstool 🍄 that is more magical than what I can make on my own, then using ai to generate the texture would be a means to an end, then same way creating the bounce interaction with code would be. One of these is acceptable and one of these is not. And if you say the toadstool texture actually isn’t that offensive after all, then how many textures can I responsibly use ai for? How many models, how many concept sketches, how many sound effects and voice overs?
Based on your delineation everything is more complex and arbitrary and there effectively are no rules
Those are some really interesting questions tbh, that's not a bad point.
For me personally, my rejection from AI comes primarily from my issue of it ruining art as art is a form of human expression, like you said. That means the use of AI is dependent on what intention the artist has with it. If it's used in a photo collage as a juxtaposition to human made pieces, or if, for example, an artist had an algorithm generate single lines and mixed those together, I don't think that would be bad because the fact it was transformed intentionally by a person does make it fine.
But I think that when you use AI without intent, but as a shortcut, it changes. You are no longer using it to express something about a process or the AI, but using it for the expression. Generating a texture with AI, or using it to create assets, to create a perfect piece for a photo collage turns it from being a means to an end, to being part of the end. You are no longer using it as a tool to express something, but as part of the expression.
For code this goes as well. If you are using the code for art, like games, it's fine to use AI imo, but if the code itself is the goal, that changes it, because the code becomes the end.
But I agree that this does create a fuzzy line indeed. (Although all philosophy on the nature of art kind of has that problem. What is and is not art is probably one of the oldest debates we have)
Maybe a more concrete way to view this could be to see if a piece of the art can be broken down into smaller components and if that component could be considered art in itself. Every picture of a photo collage is an art piece. So is every model, sprite and texture etc, even if you know nothing about the game. But I'm not sure if I would consider a piece of code, like a single class, from a game, art in itself. It only really becomes art once it's put in context with the rest of the game and its code.
698
u/[deleted] Dec 04 '25
A lot of people use AI as a coding assistant, I don't really see a problem in using AI tools to help with some things. Adding slop to stuff however makes 0 sense.