Molyneux is the perfect spokesperson for AI
post
Peter Molyneux is not a man historically known for the soundness or accuracy of his opinions.
The quote doesn't actually say "its now impossible to program without AI".
What it really is saying is "It's impossible to make a product without AI somewhere in the supply chain".
Which I still don't exactly believe, but its much different than what people seem to have read.
When I read the article, I think he's being disingenuous with his arguments here between the tools and DLSS 5 generative AI bullshit.
I mean, the efforts you have to go to extract AI from line completion stuff and from generative stuff is very challenging.
Now I think most of us who code can say that auto-complete or GIMP providing a smoothing feature is very much different than having generative AI spit out a whole game for you or producing music for you or producing yassified images for you and he's trying to lump everything into just AI. These are two completely different use cases and a lot of us are very much against the generative AI and he's trying to apply a false equivalency here against a simple predictive model like auto-complete. Also, not using the generative AI is not that challenging, I think that's absolute bullshit.
I don't think AI is powerful enough yet to trust it to produce the assets for the final quality of the game. But Rob, it will be. Yeah, it will be in less time than we can possibly imagine. Within a year, I predict that there will be AI so intimately bound to middleware like Unity and Unreal that it will be very hard for us to extract it. So at the moment we've got this ridiculous state where other industries, like the advertising industry, are embracing AI; it's the savior. Whereas the games industry is trying to push it away."
and there we go, now the mask is off and that's why he was generalizing AI, he's saying that generative AI is inevitable and we should embrace it without a fight for human creativity, that's his main argument, not that we can't get away from AI in our tools. And maybe he's right since our corporate overlords will always see human creativity as a cost account and will always embrace a technology that gets rid of a human that can only work 15 hours a day unlike that generative AI.
And that bolded line, do you think that the advertising industry has been saved by AI? Me, I don't think so, when I see a AI generated ad, I find it all very not appealing at all, not that I like any advertisement nowadays, and I don't think he's correct on with a that assumption at all and here's my citation to help me back up my assertion that Peter is wrong.
Honestly his whole interview is basically him, someone famously being high level manager type and not being very involved technically, is advocating for generative AI and that doesn't sit right with me at all.
Yeah I think I agree with that interpretation.
However, I'm not sure I agree as it being the biggest step forward in creativity at all. I feel as though it'll sloppify a lot of shit but I can still see his point of view and I can be wrong, of course.
Thanks, was just about to post this.
I think Molyneux and I disagree about the value of AI, but at least he wasn't saying "programmers can't write code themselves anymore." He's talking about how lots of built-in features in code editors come from AI (like autocomplete), or how sites have AI generated answers now when you search for things.
Yeah, bullshit. What, did someone Thanos-snap all code editors and game libs that existed pre-"AI" out of existenve? It's a choice, and he's just trying to rationalize his.
With the power of AI Pete is gonna overhype and underdeliver to an extent not thought possible before
I do it literally every day.
I have basic completion in my IDE that just completes property names.
I'm pretty sure all "his" good ideas were stolen from someone like the first Fable and Black & White and all his original ideas are barely worth being described as garbage so fuck off Peter.
The guy has been trading on an earned reputation - Bullfrog was just next level at the time. Hell go buy the back catalog on GoG most of them will stand up, even now. Now admittedly whoever was also at Bullfrog at the time was obviously the poster child of delivering to wild specifications,because the dreams stayed big, but the delivery sucked from Lionhead onwards. If you are frustrated imagine how Peter feels - maybe, maybe one day AI will be able to do the difficult bit of turning his fevered scribblings back into pure gold. But that day is not today.
It’s never an actual engineer saying this, always the “dreamers.”
The engineers said this too. It's not even controversial , AI is part of the workflow like source control is.
Which engineers? As one, I can say you do not speak for all sw engineers.
He can't speak for all engineers, either. He can feel however he wants about how to approach game design. A game designer who decides they enjoy 'turning graph paper into hex digits' is not irrelevant, if the game they put out is fun, and the art is still valid.
Not everything in our lives needs to be about 'efficiency'. We're always being pushed to the point of burn-out as if it's a virtue, and we should be damn sick of being made to feel guilty for not doing things the way 'some rich exec' says it should be.
Look, the discourse on LLMs is so charged on both side that I'd rather not engage, I'll just say that you're reading what you want in this tweet, he never wrote that you must push yourself harder, just that you could accomplish more, and that's the goal of technological advancement in general. I should know, I've worked in industrial automation my whole life.
What's ruining the LLM landscape is unbridled, malevolent capitalism, it's not the technology itself.
part of the workflow like source control is
That's how we know you're not serious. Source control can, and regularly is, removed from the "workflow," like AI can be.
Maybe I'm misunderstood, but you should always have source control and CI/CD integration on CR approvals.
Unless it's embedded or otherwise.
Almost impossible for him? That I believe.
I have personally witnessed multiple coders who were once what I'd call proficient become shells of their former selves because they basically gave up thinking for years and can no longer just code like they once
Peter Molyneux saying this is the confirmation that it's all a bubble and a scam.
Isn't this the guy who took like 9 years to come out with fable 2 and it turned out to be a pile of poo
Peter Molyneux is a known liar but I will not tolerate any slander of the best Fable game.
Suddenly everyone forgot how to program.
Almost impossible. I mean, the efforts you have to go to extract AI from line completion stuff and from generative stuff is very challenging
Yeah, totally impossible. Let me show you how impossible it is.
Step 1: Open a IDE and turn off the bullshit settings or just open a standard text editor. Step 2: Done
Suddenly everyone forgot how to program.
It's worse than that, they don't know how to install text editors without AI or turn auto complete off.
You don’t even have to turn it off. It’s not on by default in VSCodium.
Ah, I didn't pick up on the message. I really don't understand how these people were able to program and deliver entire games before... if's baffling.
I'm still not using AI, still able to code. Sorry to hear he and his employees have lost their ability, just like we said they would.
I'm imagining doing Advent of Code for these AI suckers. Would that be fun for them? Do they just paste in the problem text and say "generate the solution, no mistakes" and that's fun for them? Where does it end? Bah.
imagine someone explaining to you that it is inevitable tor life's work must be stolen.
But can AI turn an acorn into a tree ?
I understand the idea and use of AI in coding but to say it's impossible to not is just stupid.
Umm. Just no. A lot of what I do at work, AI can help only in minimal ways. I know this because some people insist on using it, and I'm always seeing their trash PRs. Because it's just no good with such specific stuff where it can really only try to find generic solutions.
While I think the visual studio and similar auto completion stuff to be awesome stuff. The internal tooling we have to write code doesn't have this and guess what, we're doing fine.
But then I don't work in a game studio. I cannot say how it is in that industry.
Is it convenient for a lot of things? Sure it is. But, you know I try to avoid it for my own personal stuff, just so I keep the brain cells that are there for software development, active and able to do it unassisted.
No, maybe not. One thing you still can do without AI is to think logically and critically.
He's actually right here, although the headline isn't quite what he said. It is legitimately becoming difficult to find any tools that do not have some AI integration. Like, are we going to expect game companies to make their own IDEs just to avoid having AI touch the development of the game? That's... just crazy. Unreal Engine has an AI assistant now, do all Unreal Engine games need to come with an AI disclosure? The goal is obviously to identify the stuff that is actually slop, not just stuff that was made with tools that could enable slop.
He's one hundred percent correct. It's just not popular to acknowledge reality.
If you take a very broad definition of "using AI" as ever having used a Google search where an AI summary came up, or having used a Linux or Microsoft kernel, IDE or software component version where AI was used for coding or checking/verifying the code in any way, then yes, it's almost impossible, as you will have to revert your tooling completely to a 2022 or earlier toolchain.
However, your decision to use an LLM (AI) to generate new code is fully your decision as a programmer to make, always will be and I don't think that's anywhere close to impossible.
Its impossible to hand roll code at the same rate as an LLM. Which means that if you don't use them, you better have a good explanation for your manager as to why you're clearing far fewer features/tickets relative to your colleagues.
You can try the "But my quality is higher/defect rate is lower", but that gap is shrinking, and it doesnt seem like game studios even care about that anyway.
We all still have the skills to write code, its just that the people who pay us don't actually care about human written code, they care about getting the game/software written as fast as possible.
You are right... though I will point out that is the speed of a delivering product which is what AI is good at and what managers want, speed of writing lines of code was never a good metric. Other than that programs have always been judged by their quality, function and performance, which perhaps AI can still improve and get better than the average programmer. Most tech companies have in the last decade prioritizing shipping fast over shipping quality, so that's why many companies see AI as something that fit right in with their production philosophy.
Nonetheless, the point is whether coding without AI is impossible as Molyneux said depends on your definition, Pandora's box is opened and it's in almost every tool, but creating new code or documentation with AI or not is still your own choice.
Gotta love the incentives of capitalism absolutely destroying artistic endeavors time and time again.
How many people do you suspect care how much manual labor they pour into collecting a paycheck, let alone call it "art"? I don't give a damn if I never handwrite another line of code for my day job.
How is that relevant to the fact that gaming is an artistic industry that is being ruined by the incentives of the capitalist system?
If you don't give a damn, then go find a different industry where you actually do give a damn about the quality of your work.
You're worried about the state and future of AAA gaming? That shit has sucked for decades now.
EDIT: I'm a backend guy which the AI dev toolkits serve just fine these days. I'd be more inclined to agree with you I imagine, if I were in a design position.
Again, how is that relevant to the point being made? Just because it sucks doesn't mean we should just give up and continue to make it worse.
Devs need to quit working for AAA studios, leave them high and dry, and go start up their own indie production.
Malicious compliance. Burn it down and let the ash fertilize indy gaming.
Denial of Labor > malicious compliance but you seem to get the gist.
Yeah, but in one scenario I still get paid the big bucks until then and a healthy severance. I personally have no hill to die on before something that will happen naturally happens.
In one scenario you continue to aid in the degradation of the industry while the other you have dignity.
Sorry, I just cannot jive with the sellout mentality.
Look, some code definitely falls into the realms of art. Fast inverse square fits that bill for me. But the vast majority of code simply isnt an artistic endeavour, its just code. And the vast majority of game coding isnt creating art, the game designers and artists create the art, the coders just make it a reality.
In a roundabout way, we may get more artistic indie games, as the artists can just get the robot to do the code to make their vision a reality, instead of needing to beg for coders. Flip side of that is that every half-baked hack can spin up their own derivative clone, and its near impossible to stand out from the sea of slop.
Disenfranchising laborers is never a good thing. More indie games (that barely work because they were vibe coded with AI) at the cost of countless coders being put out of potential employment because some numpties with no solidarity decided to use a robot that half assed the code is not a fair trade.
Also, being used in the process of an artistic endeavor makes it an artistic endeavor. To bring art to life is itself a form of art and it demands a level of quality that AI cannot replicate.
Solidarity? Really? The entire history of computers and technology has been disenfranchising labor... Its just our turn, we can pivot or we can die. Its not even new either, we have been progressively disenfranchising ourselves the entire time. From punch cards to editors, assembly to higher level languages, raw syscalls to libraries, every bit of progress we have made has obsoleted one of our own's skillsets.
As for the second point, we have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise the horse that shits in a field, that grows the food that feeds an artist is all part of the artistic endeavour.
Peter looking to take back his title of biggest dip shit back from Tim Sweeney I see
Lol that chode is still around? Fuck 'em. Dude is a hack who is known for making bullshit statements.
Still sad that someone has been making grand, unverifiable claims about the emergent behaviours of AI that utterly fail to manifest for the last few years and it was not Peter Molyneux.
Using VS Code, it's impossible to tell what the recommendation or auto complete is from. Is it AI? Is it context of the current code? Is there a difference anymore?
Regardless, I write my own code and I use AI to teach me HOW to make functional code, since I'm poop at coding. I'm using as a tool for learning and self improvement.


all 61 comments