It has been a few years now. By now you should have realized that AI is for doing stuff at a massive x100 productivity boost and never getting a complete project done. (For some reason there's those "final kinks to iron out", once the AI figures out where it fucked up. Just two more prompt modifications.)

It's much easier to ban or regulate cryptocurrencies than it is paper cash and brick-and-mortar banks.

> than [...] brick-and-mortar banks

How so?

Brick-and-mortar banks are much less centralized than crypto exchanges.

There’s thousands of smaller exchanges, and those are way easier to start up than banks. You don’t need a license -- in fact, you don’t even need a company.

Turns out the reason crypto was invented isn't "decentralization" at all, it was nerds feeling left out and wanting their own financial instrument grift.

You mean the smart nerds

For the less economical-savvy ones it was like Beanie Babies or Tulips (with predictable consequences)

I still buy tulips, just not at boom market prices.

The predictable outcome is that the deers get to them, but I got to see a few go into full bloom last year and it was wonderful.

> Yes there's a salad on the menu

The salad is also pretty trash if you use the default dressing.

There's no point to AI's existence if it's dumber and more careless than the baseline stupid human.

> but why should PDFs have encryption built-in to the file format?

So you could open encrypted documents on iOS and Android.

When your software crashes and doesn't do what it's told I will think back on the thousands of bullshit tests Claude wrote and feel less bummed out about it. (Maybe.)

> Claude Code can build that application in an unprecedentedly short period

Yes, with the caveat that the application doesn't actually work.

P.S. If you wrote non-working applications even before the age of AI, then this is an upgrade, I guess.

These replies are getting exhausting. We’re well-passed generating high quality code using GenAI.

If you think we’re still dealing with hallucinations or fake code, then you’re experiences are about 8 months behind.

> then you’re experiences are about 8 months behind

I've been hearing this excuse for the past five years, bro.

When will AI finally be a real boy? Gimme a real date so I can make fun of you.

I have a team of devs proving a significant increase in velocity while maintaining quality.

But it’s private corporate work so I can only suggest you keep an open mind and actually research the effectiveness of GrnAI in application construction.

I mean, 8 months ago Anthropic made Claude build a C compiler autonomously, and the crowd came to the autonomous repo and threw a shitposting party making fun of the build failing for some time (it fixed itself in a few days but nobody cared anymore, partying was the entire point). Half a year later we had people porting huge million-LoC projects to different platforms, they run and literally have bug-to-bug parity. It's tedious work that doesn't need deep thinking but has clearly defined goals and can be iterated upon, so it's a good fit for current AI. If your expectation of vibecoded software is it doesn't actually work (as you said above) then you really need to update it. Internals might be a horror, but it does work and it's not broken. This wasn't the case a few months ago.

And yet here I am, playing a full-fledged first-person shooter written from scratch by an LLM as a proof of concept. It has enemies I sketched on paper, everything else is 100% procedurally generated in code. In what way does it not work? It's not very good, it's not optimized for maintenance or extension (that would take a complete rework which is also cheaper with it), but it does work and is not broken because the agent tested the most obvious scenarios. It took it a few hours.

As soon as your spec has a clearly defined reachable goal and non-contradictory constraints, and doesn't require taste or judgement, current agents are pretty good at reaching it, because it's all they're optimized for. Writing that spec in a non-contradictory manner is not trivial, though.

> It's not very good, it's not optimized for maintenance or extension

Well yeah. Prototypes are not products, the last 10% takes 90% of the time, and so on.

Practically half the wisdom written about software in the last 20 years has been about the fact that just because you can make something that kinda looks like the thing at a glance very much does not mean you can make the thing. All those "small tweaks" you think you need to be finished usually turn out to require large redesigns, else you'll tank performance, stability, security, usability, or all four at once.

Meditate on the fact that people used to (and still do!) go to game jams and code games with freshly made assets in a day. I just did one myself without llms at the weekend. Whats the difference between that and making a game that people buy? Why does it take so much longer?

Also, FPS is a done to death concept that has plenty of repos for LLMs to take snippets from. A better test would be trying to vibe-coding an original game (e.g. something like Miegacure) and see how well LLM does, even when you give it well-defined goal and constraints. My guess is that would fail miserably.

I am "creating", at least designing, games with my kids. It's not that I couldn't possibly do it before, but I certainly would never have the time to.

I explored frameworks and engines, and landed on Bevy, I asked for a rudimentary arena, isometric perspective, 4 players, xinput support, portable desktop and wasm targets.

After that part done we've made the characters into chickens using no assets, only primitive mesh, having a trail of feathers, flapping wings on jump/double jump as well as gliding, picking animation, bite/grab, zenith shadows on characters (despite being unrealistic, in favor of platforming), physics objects, a few game modes like soccer, bowling, etc.

Each of these were iterative additions, so it's like previous development, only the coding/debugging time is largely removed. Is there bloat? Absolutely. But it still works, and while it's not a "real" game yet, I do believe it's original, it's certainly evolving exactly to our design, however confused it is.

>In what way does it not work? It's not very good, it's not optimized for maintenance or extension (that would take a complete rework which is also cheaper with it), but it does work and is not broken because the agent tested the most obvious scenarios. It took it a few hours.

Was your purpose to "make a basic FPS template that barely works", or "make a fun game that can sell and appeal to a specific audience"?

If more people were honest about the former reason and not trying to play it off as the latter, then maybe LLM's wouldn't have its reputation among comsumers as "slop". Making a protoype of a basic functional FPS was never the hard problem to solve. UE5's sample project does that for you. These days Roblox/UEFN also does that for you.

As I implied with "proof of concept", the purpose was to see if it works at all, not to make a game. It made mistakes and autonomously fixed them. Just a few months before, agents weren't able to do this. Now they're able to reach the goals you set, as long as they're definite, you're not making immovable objects collide with unstoppable forces, and the search space is not very diverse.

Disposable prototypes were the goal in some cases.

> In what way does it not work?

It doesn't fulfill its primary purpose of being a (fun) game.

> It doesn't fulfill its primary purpose of being a (fun) game.

A fun game isn't made when you're working on the engine & tech.

It is only made when everywhere else has been done, & when the feedback mechanisms are tightened. This will never happen in the prototyping stage, because the point is to make the thing exist in the first place.

------

This comment is the same Reddit-style one-off critique that makes no actual sense when placed at the grindstone, made by people that have never actually tried to make one with OR without.

TL;DR - you didn't make a game, but lied on the Internet that you did.

??? I don't see anyone claiming they made a game, let alone a "fun" one, you're replying to something that is not in this thread. The claim was that the agent wrote a program with clearly defined constraints and it works according to spec because it dutifully tested it and iterated on incorrect code. It's not bugged, it doesn't crash or anything like that.