It's almost like they cancelled Colbert because it was deeply unprofitable, even more so relative to its time slot opportunity cost, and the local broadcast affiliates wanted to use the time instead... and kept Daily Show because it was a highly profitable cable show.

If you have not spent the last 1.5 months with Astra or Opus 5.5 in daily dev you may have a skewed view of what their capabilities are based on social media reading. I'll break down why there is such a big wave happening in games as a result of these specific models, which are substantially better than what had come before. Coding a game requires an understanding of the language you are coding in, the structure of the code you want to write, the logic by which you lay down the code, the architecture it sits in, the components it connects to / affects, and if you are writing in an engine, the engine and its editor and plugins. Earlier this year some of these components- code structure and language- were good, but the LLMs lacked good logic, components, and editor understanding. Plus many of the systems lacked good MCP support; UE didn't add a lot of theirs until July, for example, and even then it required a lot of engine restarts. In just the last few months most of this had been fixed. Astra was the first model, launched in the second half of August, where I felt like it had the understanding of Unreal at the level of a mid-career programmer, but it blew away tokens faster than Scarface. Then we got Opus 5.5 in the second half of September and it had the capabilities of Astra 6.1 but at 1/5 the token cost, meaning I could go several days before hitting my weekly usage cap. Not only did the model properly understand how Unreal, Godot, Threejs and other systems worked, but the editors actually played nice with them. More importantly, the logic and structure of their code was nearing senior dev, and if you put it at the highest settings, could actually develop strong architectures, though it could still jump to wrong assumptions if it misunderstood you. Anyone complaining about bugs is probably misunderstanding an actual bug for incorrect logic. I find it very, very rarely makes standard bugs (like forgetting a character or putting the wrong string in, something that my best devs still do all the time). The logic issues will get better as time goes on and the models self correct. They will always be limited by an understanding of what you want to build, but they are superior at the speed by which they can code and test their own coded. Concurrent with this the recent models became excellent at Blender usage. This means they can adjust models and animation themselves, without you needing to do a lot of the legwork. This does not mean they are great at them yet; I find its animation quality to be at the level of a junior animator. It still lacks understanding of key body parts and smooth movement. But the path to getting there is clear and I suspect this will be solved within six months. They are also still bad at lighting and visual/gameplay fidelity feel. I suspect lighting it will get better at, I think gameplay feel may take a long time. These components combined are what has brought us to our current point.

studios refusing to use AI will be beaten by those who do -faster content -more content -lower cost of dev imagine a farmer refusing to use the plow because it took jobs away from hired hands

They don’t understand how things work.

Correct. I've spent several months building my upcoming title with AI. The amount of decisions I have to make isn't radically different than traditional development.

Notch was the warning shot & Tim Sweeney is the killshot for the AI luddites This discussion is finished and we should move on

Definitely a controversial statement but he's not wrong. All your favorite Roblox games use AI now. I can name maybe just 3 or 4 that I know for sure do not. Most games just don't publicly admit it due to fear of backlash. Not saying it's good or bad.. it's just the reality.

Per my tweet on Oct 9th:

Once again, the smartest people in the room have rational takes on AI. Game developers who are against what @TimSweeneyEpic is doing, take note: Linux maintainers have declared that LLM usage is no longer required to be declared. Linus Torvalds calls a ban on AI 'utterly stupid'. Linus adds, "Quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools."

This is the correct response.

There are consumers who gauge value on how much cost was spent when determining purchase behavior, but in most cases this is opaque. Put another way, people bought pet rocks. If your argument is instead that the definition of "obviously AI art" means poor quality, I agree with that, but then this is an issue with the image being poor quality (a general truth!) rather than whether human or computer labor went into it.

I am not suggesting you have been against AI coding. I am pointing out the difference between the positions on AI coding and AI art (your argument a few days ago re: paying for AI art)

You could read the Wall Street journal sometime and find out pretty quickly where the issues with their numbers are or you could write a piece like this which asks a question that’s already been answered

Hey remember a month ago when we were told AI was gonna kill us all? Seems we have moved on, kind of sus for something that’s supposed to kill us all. Hmm.

The people making roblox clones aren't necessarily using binaries.

What the worst person you know is going to be saying today:

thank you for the idea. it is mine now. behold, dinoslop, the game. dinoslop.azabu.chatgpt.site/

This is Elon Musk's resume thus far. Anyone calling him stupid is, in fact, stupid.