no_multitudes

> You can’t ignore almost my entire comment and then claim a single fallacy and move on.

Yes I can. You are not entitled to a greater share of my attention than I feel your post is worth. I'm sorry if you find that upsetting!

> But, let's be real. If it's not 100%, it's 99.99% and we can round up.

Motte and bailey

> The problem is that literally zero percent of new games will be valid as “no AI” then. Not a low percent, zero percent.

This is not true. Mobius Digital, for example, does not use generative AI.

> Every software engineer, everywhere on Earth, is using LLMs to some extent in their workflow. The only exceptions are where it’s literally illegal to do so.

Surely you know such a broad statement cannot possibly be true

>If I use Opus 5.5 to spin up a debug session and step through part of the code to recreate a segmentation fault, does the entire project now need a "MADE WITH AI" label on it?

Yes. Of course you can explain all the nuance in your AI disclosure statement and consumers can decide if it matters to them.

>What if I made a game before LLMs existed, but now I'm using Astra to look for memory leaks and help me fix them? Does my "NO AI" label now flip?

Yes.

Yes. The obviously-AI ones are of course the most offensive, but in general I would always prefer to use the UI without any AI involvement.

Ok. In this scenario, I would happily stick to the 10% of games not tagged as AI.

> AI having written any of the code would get so many games tagged as AI that the label would lose all meaning.

It would not lose all meaning. If you don't want to be tagged as AI, don't use AI to write your games. Customers can decide if that matters to them.

Personally, I do not think that Opus 5.5 has visual taste, and I find games with a UI clearly written by Claude to be unplayably ugly. I would love a filter that excluded them.

What a misanthropic thing to make. I'm embarrassed for you.

Simply let them pay the tax with shares. Problem solved!

There are many things about the laws of physics that push a cancer cure a long time away! Biology is downstream of physics, and the biology of cancer is so vast that the very concept of a "cure for cancer" is almost nonsensical.

We'd be much better off building colonies on the bottom of the ocean than on the moon or mars (or a cylinder floating at a lagrange point.)

After we run out of space on the ocean I suppose it will make sense to consider space colonies, but I think you are really underestimating the technical challenges.

Stop doing that.

I'm happy Claude told you it isn't dangerous. However, other people don't want to read your LLM output. Please respect other people's time by only sharing things you wrote yourself.