Thank you to the author for disclosing slop writing up front. I appreciate you respecting your readers time.

And yet, curiously, they fall flat on their silicone asses until they have a copy of the test to "train on".

75 years and counting and considering we don't have any plan to get to a single one of those things, I'm going to say 75 years. Computation alone is at least 30 years. You may not appreciate the complexity of biological systems, but single cell organisms have more capability to adapt than LLMs.

75 years and we get to play Victor Frankenstein ?

seems like a very short timeline to me.

We have been able to stage reckless experiments with janky tools the entire time. Used to be it got you thrown in jail or at least a visit by the FBI. Says more about the tech bro dipshits than the tech, if you ask me.

Isn't that primarily what they offer anyway? So "subscription required" would check that box.

Maybe they'll ask for a "slower pace of development" so it doesn't look as much like they're just asking for new regulatory barriers on their competition.

I am 100% certain the code you write by hand will be better quality, even with AI pointing out options, than letting the AI string together completely obtuse abstractions.

GP here, hopefully you are correct.

I have two projects running concurrently. One is my hand-written project. The other is one "demolition zone." In the latter, I can vibe-code and do whatever I want just to see what LLMs can hack away at in comparison.

Besides the enjoyment I get from programming by hand, I have a more overarching concern when it comes to a building a full game. I am using Monogame, and I realized that is probably not the library to use if I am going to have no understanding of how things work under the hood. I tried to review LLM code, but without knowing enough of Monogame's API, I really couldn't make a good judgement call on the quality.

Looking at the LLM code, for example, were the keyboard and game pad implementations correct? I am not sure at first glance. I haven't implemented one since I used C++ in a game dev class in college over 12 years ago. The LLM's tests passed, which is fine and dandy, but how do I know the tests are truly valid if I do not understand what is fundamentally being tested?

I am not building this game entirely for fun either (though I am having a blast). I am working with a few non-technical friends on making this game. So, I do not want to disappoint them by creating something with bugs that I cannot fix because I have no earthly clue how anything works. I believe that would be embarrassing for me and disrespectful to them.

> The LLM's tests passed, which is fine and dandy, but how do I know the tests are truly valid if I do not understand what is fundamentally being tested?

Do what I do sometimes: use opaque pointers (in C, or C++), and don't give the LLM the implementation, give them only the header, when asking it for tests.

I've lost count of the number of times I'll give only the header, but the LLM insists it needs to see the implementation as well in order to write the tests.

If you're not using C or C++, well, then write interfaces, give that to the LLM.

Yup. More hype mania from someone with a financial interest in people abdicating their thought to AI.

Rapid, empty, and poorly integrated code that appears to work but no one bothers to understand is much less valuable than everyone seems to believe.

It's something an LLM would never be able to come up with because it requires a depth of experience that LLMs just don't have. It's authentically human.

This makes more sense. Automatic loss for the offending parent.

In which case, abusive parents can use the rule to retaliate against their children. Never define a rule that gives bad actors power to dictate policy. (Note: this criticism doesn't seem to apply to the actual rule.)