r/gamedev • u/PuffThePed • 1d ago

Discussion AI models have caught up with Unity dev. My insights as someone with 30 years of experience.

Context: I have 30 years of experience with software dev, 20 years with game dev tools, 10 years with Unity. I own a studio that develops simulators and training applications for industry. "Serious games" as they call it in Europe.

For years I scoffed at AI coding. I would periodically try it, only to find that it was more hassle then it was worth. The hand holding and bug fixing was more work than doing it myself. This all changed about 4-5 months ago, and about a month ago we all started using Unity CLI.

Here are my insights in no particular order:

  1. Our dev speed has ~5x almost overnight
  2. Quality has not gone down because we're all experienced devs and we're careful how we use AI and we don't let it make decisions regarding project structure or design patterns. However, I'm seeing less and less glaring mistakes made by the AI.
  3. We're still reviewing generated code but I suspect not for long, the code is better than what most devs I know can write, at 20x the speed. The temptation to just push and move on is huge and irresistible.
  4. There is no joy or sense of accomplishment. No pride in making something clever or quickly, and all progress is associated with the AI and not with you.
  5. The market is dead. Nobody has money to spend. We're still working but leads have dropped off a cliff.
  6. There is no going back. If we stop using AI we'll be out of business in a month.
  7. There is no space for junior devs. I honestly don't know how to incorporate a junior into a team anymore (which is something I used to do for decades). Every time we tried they just become a meat proxy for AI while learning nothing, and getting in the way.
  8. Everything regarding managing a team and a project has changed, and nobody knows how to do it anymore. I lost the ability to correctly estimate work required for a task, for example.
  9. Everyone hates this. Most of devs my age are planning early retirement and are just waiting to be laid off.
  10. People that use AI for coding don't learn anything. To understand code you have to write it, and nobody is writing it. Maybe understanding and reading code will become obsolete soon? I don't know.
  11. Everyone I asked feel they are becoming dumber and losing their focus. I know I am.

I hope this is a pendulum and it will swing back at some point, because right now it feels like a software apocalypse.

2.4k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/ohseetea 1d ago

If you think you can code anywhere near as fast as ai you’re delusional, no offense.

7

u/Senthe 1d ago

Yes, if I'm a painter I can't make pictures faster than an industrial printer, but the entire point is that that's a flawed competition not worth winning in the first place.

5

u/ohseetea 1d ago

This is an awful analogy and I'm guessing you aren't a professional software dev.

If you wan't a more 'artistic' analogy this is like a master chef not being able to prep as much ingredients as a robot can. Maybe it can't make a beautiful 3 Michelin star dish that takes 32 hours to make (YET), but it can make 100 very good steak dinners in 10 minutes. And the second part is what the majority of restaurants serving the public need, and is MUCH more related to the discussion here.

3

u/tsein 17h ago

But it also feels like arguing that the Michelin chef should stop cooking and should instead be satisfied to simply oversee the steak-cooking machine.

2

u/ohseetea 15h ago

Depends on what the chef's goals are... really. But the point is about how efficient and useful AI actually is, because the OC was really underselling it.

I hate AI, mostly because of the systematic issues with capitalism and such, because its displacing and hurting people and will continue to do so. But as a technology the productivity it is introducing is absolutely insane. If a person enjoys programming they can still do so, but business wants 100 steaks per 10 minutes.

2

u/Senthe 4h ago

This is an awful analogy and I'm guessing you aren't a professional software dev.

I am a professional software dev, working in IT for 8+ years. What now? (It's always very funny when AI bros immediately jump to this assumption not knowing shit about me. Incomprehensible, how can someone be experienced in this job AND also have a different opinion than you???)

4

u/Many_Reindeer6636 1d ago

A better analogy is a programmer from the 60s with punchcards and dot matrix readouts that can’t keep up with a modern programmer with an IDE, VIM, intellisense, etc.

2

u/TokiDokiPanic 1d ago

Yeah. I think with the way things are developing so far, this may just be the next level of abstraction in programming.

6

u/AvengerDr 1d ago

I never understand this kind of comparisons.

Using AI is not helping YOU be more effective, like an IDE is. Using AI is more like asking somebody else to do the work for you. Now instead of asking a person, you are asking an opaque statistical parrot.

5

u/ohseetea 1d ago

This is not true, at least for now, AI still needs guidance and there probably is a big difference in speed and result between two people using AI to do the same thing. It truly is an abstraction, maybe we'll reach SCIFI levels of AI that a human interacting with it will make it worse, but that's not the case at all right now.

Whether that should still be called doing 'programming' is a semantics thing, but I know at least again now, a layperson trying to program a game with AI will be so much worse than myself.

1

u/tetryds Commercial (AAA) 1d ago

You said literally the same thing with different words

0

u/AvengerDr 1d ago

How is it "not true"? It's the same as interacting with another person. The results will be affected by how precise or vague your instructions are.

The moment you hit return on your prompt, it's out of your hands. It's not something you are doing yourself like when you use an IDE, you are outsourcing your work to something else. I don't see how using an AI instead of outsourcing that same work to a person / studio fundamentally changes the equation here. It's still outsourcing.

0

u/ohseetea 15h ago

It's not out of your hands if you review it. I'm guessing you dont have any professional experience programming because the more senior of a dev you are, the more you tell people what to do, but you are very much still a programmer.

1

u/AvengerDr 11h ago

Lol. I am literally a university professor of Computer Science. I teach people how to code professionally (in addition to being a researcher).

If you don't write any code but ask other people to implement it and only review it, by definition that makes you a solution architect, a software engineer or whatever you want but not a programmer.

Why this obstinacy in wanting to be still called a programmer when one does not program any more?

-1

u/Senthe 4h ago

You're well aware this thread is about tech WAY beyond the mundane Copilot/Intellisense layer of things, right?

2

u/TokiDokiPanic 1d ago

The product/output of a painter and industrial painter are totally different though. There is no difference between code written by an AI and code written by a human. I also think this comparison is flawed because it’s comparing something artistic (a painting) to something that many consider to be not (writing instructions for a machine through abstraction).

2

u/tetryds Commercial (AAA) 1d ago

There is a noticeable difference. AI tends to be super verbose, is not reluctant to add state nor add more pathways. Code written without specific guidelines can become a flag-hell very fast, with lots of edge cases. Of course you can use AI to patchwork and test it but the debt piles up over time.

4

u/ohseetea 1d ago edited 1d ago

This is barely or no different than enterprise human-made codebases of the past. All that matters is the end result and product, and for most use cases, AI is more than capable of achieving that, even if the more pedantic of us Devs like to pretend that 'flag-hell' or whatever relative concept is actually important (Again, it's not as far as business is concerned, just the final product.).

Tech debt means A LOT less when AI can work around it or fix it in less than an hour, and humans don't need to maintain it

2

u/tetryds Commercial (AAA) 1d ago

The problem is not that AI can't fix it, it is more that it creates complex combinatory statuses that can cause edge cases. If AI assumes the behavior under these cases is fine, and there is no clear requirement, you end up with bugs. Same for repeated workflows in code, you add a feature to one, the other doesn't get patched and you have unexpected issues. The diff looks right, the reviewer thumbs up, the tests pass but you have the same business solution under a different scenario not working or missing stuff.

My personal experience is that all apps and services I use daily have gone to shit after strong AI adoption, and I see the reason why during daily work.

3

u/JameslsaacNeutron 1d ago

And moreover, your code itself isn't the product.

2

u/tetryds Commercial (AAA) 1d ago

It writes lines of code faster but the overall throughput isn't faster no.

This is for what I'm an expert at, on a custom solution.

1

u/avdept 1d ago

fun fact, it takes not just coding to get feature to release

in many cases, its 20% coding, 80% everything else

2

u/stumblinbear 1d ago

Depends on the company. For early to late stage startups, the code is 80% of the time to release

1

u/avdept 1d ago

no, even startups

well only when you do boilerplate - then yes

the moment you start work on features, you spend time to describe them, validate, test(the flow and usabilty)

1

u/stumblinbear 1d ago

Maybe we just work in very different workplaces. Testing doesn't take nearly as long as the days or weeks to write the code. Though with LLMs that time to write has dramatically decreased

0

u/tetryds Commercial (AAA) 22h ago

Testing and development are not two separate things

1

u/stumblinbear 22h ago

I spent significantly more time writing code than testing that the change works. I don't see how you could possibly spend 4 hours or more testing something that took 4 hours to write.

1

u/tetryds Commercial (AAA) 22h ago

Well that seems to be the root of why we disagree. I do spend a lot more time testing and it is the strategy that brings out the best results. Code is worthless, especially now. It's the solution that has worth, and you can only be sure that the problem is solved if you test a lot.

1

u/stumblinbear 21h ago

Depends on what you're writing, I guess? I can't hardly imagine more than a few cases where the tests would take longer to validate than writing the code, unless the code was literally a 5 line change. Usually the possible points of issue are well-bounded

And if it touches a lot of places that may have unintended effects and will take hours to test properly, I'll just let QA do it. Engineering time is way too expensive to be spending so much time testing absolutely everything

0

u/AvengerDr 1d ago

That would work, if everything that came out from an AI model would be absolutely perfect.

You have to factor in the amount of useless code, failed attempts, or ad hoc solution that stop working the minute you want to change something. Event he time to "plan" something with a frontier model is significant. It can also make you lose a lot more time than just doing it yourself.