patch_dev

You're making an assumption on what AI lab have promised? The same AI labs that have made a strategy out of lying for hype? Thats crazy man, regardless of whether anything else you're saying is valid.

What does this solve that well used subagents doesn't solve already?

I have to disagree again sorry. I can't speak to being able to "spot a unity or unreal game from miles away," but if you want to make a game, make the damn game not an engine.

I get the feeling there is a serious survivor bias happening here. Individuals who are talented and knowledgable enough to roll their own engine, make it well and quick enough, maintain motivation AND cross the finish line to actually make a game likely make a pretty good game. Now consider all the other people who tried this path and got stuck along the way. Now you're gonna recommend all that complexity and difficulty to someone because you think games should "feel" unique. Like, its just not based in reality sorry.

I think there are 2 reasons to roll your own game engine

1. Making a game isn't your top priority and you're interested in game engines

2. No existing game engine does what you need it to do and you have enough experience/knowledge to know where you're going

If you're decision is based on "I want my game to feel unique", "it might not be performance enough" or some other immaterial and ethereal concept I fear you're gonna be set up for failure.

Noita is a perfect example of when to roll your own. They push the boundaries so much that they absolutely need a custom engine. Path of Exile, another example where their vision REQUIRED a custom game engine.

This is a really bad take, sorry.

1. Engine choice is only a factor in performance. If you build an unoptimised game it will run poorly. Doesn't matter if you do it in Unity or your own engine. 2. Terraria, etc did not succeed because they use their own engines. 3. Those bad performance games have bad performance and happen to use an engine, not the other way round. 4. The quality of your game has a lot more to do with effort, care, etc than the engine you choose to use. You can create a buggy piece of crap no matter how you make it 5. Performance alone is a bad reason to roll your own engine. "Existing engines are not performant so you should roll your own" is a very bad piece of advice. 6. Making a good engine is HARD and a lot of effort. There is no guarantee that you produce anything better because you chose that path.

I believe Meta and most social medias cause significant societal damage. I also think that humans as a baseline are deserving of sympathy. Lets take the straw man Meta employee who causes damage and lacks empathy. Personally I'd think it's sad that that employee doesn't experience the emotion of empathy. I wonder how that impacts their personal life, why don't they experience that empathy?

I don't think it's a good idea to use someone else's perceived lack of empathy as an excuse to not be sympathetic.

The issue I have is you are strawmanning every Meta employee into an amorphous form that knowingly works at Meta only for the money that trades away their rights to a safe work environment without any humanity to it. Thats not true, every individual there is unique with their own situation. Trying to lump thousands of people like that is really reductive.

Why aren't they deserving of sympathy? Crazy take and a massive lack of empathy.

Do we need a poll for this? You'd need to be living under a rock or only listening to AI sycophants to believe the average person is enjoying the new AI world.

I mean, lets be real, the way LLMs have been unleashed on the world has not been an overall positive. Don't misconstrue that to be me saying LLMs and AI is useless though, I am not! Can AI be an overall positive one day? Absolutely yes; I think its a guarantee really. Is AI useful right now? Yep. What I'm saying is the negative now outweighs the positive now because of how its being used, narratives and excuses around it.

Fully agree actually. Not sure its a counterpoint at all really, but its a great point. My comment wasn't intended to be "juniors were never worth it", but instead "juniors WERE worth it before but not because they produced amazing ROI themselves, why does the introduction of an LLM change that?" I'm solidly against the narrative that now all of a sudden juniors aren't worth hiring anymore because a senior with an LLM = 100x engineer.

I see this take all the time, but hiring a junior/intern has never been great ROI, so I hear. Why did we ever do it in the past? Its not like it was ever likely that hiring a junior means getting an employee for life. Could it be that the economic and shareholder pressures are requiring this rather than it being a logical thing?

Yeah I must be missing something again. Comparing human to AI here seems to be fundamentally wrong. A human will learn over time and improve their mental model of a problem and ability to code. An AI agent for the most part is fixed by its model. I just don't see how pointing an agent at AI generated code to refactor without direct human guidance results in better code.

Maybe you can describe what the various forms of tech debt are that you are talking about?

So you have an AI refactor AI generated code? What am I missing here, if AI is the cause of the tech debt because it doesn't write great code, won't you just end up with more tech debt if you ask AI to refactor it?

Well, could you define what reasoning actually means? What would an AI need to do to be considered capable of reasoning? What is the core difference between what we do that is considered reasoning verse what AI currently does that is not considered reasoning?

To be clear, I am not making a statement as to whether AI reasons or not. Its just slippery to say something isn't or can't do X when we can't really define X. Perhaps if we can put it down as an outcome rather than an, in my opinion, currently impossible to accurately define characteristic of a thing.

This is an interesting idea, but do you have an example of you having done this or is it pure speculation as to what would work? My worry would be that a complex codebase ported over would have a heap of subtle bugs littered throughout it and no one who really understands it.

It's hard to tell what your blog posts are actually about because the titles are so cryptic. May I ask if you find any benefit from naming posts in way that makes it difficult to know what you are about to write about? I'm guessing it's purely creative which is totally fine.