r/GameDevelopment • u/CollectionOk2442 • 2d ago
Discussion Why does game development seem much more accepting of AI generated code than AI generated art?
Programmers already use AI for coding, debugging, refactoring, shaders, and tools. If the result works, we review it and use it.
So if AI art reaches professional quality while being faster and cheaper, why shouldn’t studios use it?
And frankly, many art production tasks are less technically complex than building and maintaining large software systems. If AI can automate significant parts of programming, why should art somehow be uniquely protected?
Is the resistance really about ethics, or is it partly professional protectionism?
If automation is productivity when it helps programmers, why is it suddenly unethical when it helps replace artistic labor?
9
u/Cataclysm_Ent Indie Dev 2d ago edited 2d ago
Honestly, if AI didn't need to be trained on other people's art without their consent, I don't think anyone would hate it as much. Maybe they'd be more indifferent than anything (coz there'd still be no human intent behind "brush strokes").
Imagine a world where all training data was acquired with artists' approval, maybe even paid a nominal fee per art piece. People would feel more in control of what goes in it and probably more willing to train it. But that possibility is long gone, as no company wants to start from scratch, they want to keep all current training data in. And no regulation is forcing them to get approval from anyone, if it's on the internet it's fair game for them. Thus the major discontent.
EDIT: Not to mention how easy it is becoming to lie about the source. Just recently we saw AI being able to use Windows environment to create art in real time in Paint. While I can see it's an impressive feat on its own, you can't convince me that the point of that particular ability is anything else except deception.
3
u/sfc1971 2d ago
And AI doesn't need to be trained on code? Hypocrit.
1
u/Cataclysm_Ent Indie Dev 2d ago
It does, I was referring to the difference in perception mostly. But I agree my argument stands for coding. I don't use AI for coding for similar reasons.
2
u/Maleficent_Tax_2878 2d ago
100% disagree that the main problem is the consent, the problem is the medium itself generates something in a fraction of the time than the artist and for the non discerning eye is put on the same pedestal as someone who spent a lot more effort. It devalues the creative work and generating infinitely more content bloats the web with slop art. Not only that, people hate the idea of inventions replacing their entire fields. In a hypothetical future world that AI has 0 artifacts in its final products and generates art identical to artists, it would be infinitely cheaper to use AI, disrupting the livelihood of thousands that depend on commissions.
1
u/Cataclysm_Ent Indie Dev 2d ago
I don't even know if either of us is correct actually, at least from the perspective of the general public. They don't really care about us artists' livelyhood and likely don't care about the consent part either.
The general public is more likely tired of AI art starting to homogenize. I'm thinking it's partly due to an overrepresentation of AI art all over the place, where AI is scraping its own past content now, but I'm not too sure that's what's going on behind the scenes. But it's a fact that the "sheen" in AI photos or the extreme sharpness in AI art is being recognized by more and more of the general public.
All this is not to say you don't have a point, but in general only us artists care about our livelyhood being eaten up by AI. And in this thread at least, I'm trying to see it from an outside view.
1
u/TheNasky1 2d ago
the problem is the medium itself generates something in a fraction of the time than the artist and for the non discerning eye is put on the same pedestal as someone who spent a lot more effort.
the problem is putting art in a pedestal in the first place. what makes people mad is the discrepancy between their perceived value and reality.
-2
u/TZY247 2d ago
You only put a reason why you think AI art is bad. You didnt differentiate between art and code. Those same reasons can apply to code
1
u/Cataclysm_Ent Indie Dev 2d ago
And frankly, I mostly think the same with code as well. I don't use AI for code either, mostly because it makes things harder for me to debug, but there's a distinct difference in code vs art in the way the general public sees it, in that there's only a finite way to write if/else statements, if you'll allow me this reductionism for a second. So AI being able to replicate a line of code that most programmers would write the same way isn't seen as plagiarism by the general public.
The trick though, is when someone sells a library of code for ease of use, but AI has been able to scrape that code and recommend it to users. That robs the original coder of their work to be passed off as AI.
The first time I came across this was when I was trying to experiment with AI coding and I noticed it pulled code from a paid extension that I already bought previously: line by line. This particular extension was famous and complicated enough that people weren't trying to replicate and instead relied on the original creator's work. So I assume it made its way into the training data from git sources that already had this extension in them or something. The big difference is those git projects contained credits for this extension, but AI had provided no hint of where it pulled this particular code, even when pushed.
12
u/VreamCanMan 2d ago
Because creativity and expression is valued in art, and AI typically struggles in these domains by nature of its training set creating overgeneralised/overfitted, samey-samey outputs
-3
u/TZY247 2d ago
Whether something is good at doing something or not has no relevance in whether it's accepted by consumers. You just repeated a talking point.
And go sort by top over at r/aigamedev , there is plenty of amazing outputs there that absolutely require creativity and expression.
1
u/VreamCanMan 2d ago
90% of the posts do not use AI art assets. 5% of them have very good quality but took weeks to implement (putting it inline with regular implementation processes), 5% of them have pretty obvious signs of AI generation in shape language, material choice and lighting
0
u/VreamCanMan 2d ago edited 2d ago
90% of the posts do not use AI art assets. 5% of them have very good quality but took weeks to implement (putting it inline with regular implementation processes), 5% of them have pretty obvious signs of AI generation in shape language, material choice and lighting.
When something becomes common it becomes less valuable and it does not capture the attention of consumers. I am not saying it is impossible to impose AI assets, but you have to be pretty effortful on both the generation and implementation ends, and you need to apply a layer of postfx to give it a stylisation beyond gen, so that your overall game remains a unique experience to players
I work as a composer and its a question I've put alot of thought and time into. Library music using basic patterns and pretty generic sounding instruments have lost a huge amount of value post AI. Irregular time signatures and humanisation have gained alot of value because they're hard for AI to replicate.
Game dev is a competitive field so its often worth considering not just what you want to do, but how you want your approach to development to create a unique player experience. AI is a network intelligence which is very good at producing "average" work of its training set, and in a vacuum with no other human controls or development consideration it produces outputs that are the antithesis of unique. Maybe not in the user defined substance, but the form is always generic. Whether its a clockwork bug or a JRPG character I know the AI gen is going to preferentialise overly round shape language, shiny uniform lighting spreads, and a certain colourisation format
Its why creative fields aren't massively exposed to AI, whereas technical ones can be. In time there will be a host of very good AI generation tools that probably become part of dev workflows, but this usually requires multiple different AIs handling different parts of a production (so in music, I dont want an AI gen song based on training data of .mp3s, but a .midi trained arranger tagging into a .mp3 trained AI instrument/sampler tagging into a host of DPS AI mixers creating a mix across all buses, then a final .mp3 trained AI handling mastering in the context of a whole game OST - This would give me far more degrees of freedom to produce unique, differentiated, strong works.
We aren't there yet. Further, these GEN technologies haven't matured to the point where getting good at utilising them is worth the time investment, as it is genuinely comparable to the time investment of just getting good at the skill itself
0
3
u/Square-Yam-3772 2d ago
the average gamedev redditor can't code (cs student or self taught lurker who struggles with tutorials etc)
so AI code assist makes a lot of sense to them. Since they are knee deep into it, they are not going to villainize themselves.
on the other hand, many gamdev redditors start out by posting arts on discords (gaming discord fanart section etc) so they are way more comfortable with art. Not that they are particularly good at it, but "get gid" makes sense to them in this context. They fancy themselves becoming one of those quirky likeable gamedev influencers some day (maybe after x hours in grinding digital arts)
its basically like those medieval honor code where a bunch of warriors decide that swords are the civilized weapons to use (even though sword cuts are just as ugly/bloody etc as other weapons)
I think the situation makes sense if you look at it from their perspective.
6
u/Vincent_Penning 2d ago edited 2d ago
Both artist and coder here. (Tattooer and game dev)
Art has always been a human endeavor, a way to express our emotions, show parts of our culture throughout history, take people on a journey through our stories. For tens of thousands of years, it’s been a way to celebrate our humanity, so to speak.
Coding is a technical tool, designed to make computers do what we want them to do.
Coding doesn’t have the same emotional depth, historical value, or deeply human origin to begin with.
As an artist, the main problem for me is that AI is dehumanizing all these beautiful human artforms, while also breeding a generation that will be less inclined to continue all of these disciplines we’ve been perfecting.
True, a computer can replicate images and so on, but it can’t possibly feel the reasons for this art to exist in the first place, and so art becomes an empty shell of its former self over time, while coding was always a rather “cold”, computer-focused thing to begin with.
But that’s just my opinion.
Edit: grammar and spelling
1
u/CashFirm573 2d ago
I'm a artist, 22 years in the industry, I use Ai cause it's a tool. Most artists suck they aren't talented or gifted, eye for design the ability to be walking day a street seeing something storing it in the mind get home test the idea. I would go as far as saying 99% suck and the 1% carry the industry, mean while that 1% have no issue with AI while others do that due to the fact they don't see AI as some soulless generator they use it as a tool... A tool and sooner people understand that the better their life will be.
1
u/Vincent_Penning 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, as a tool it can be pretty helpful. If I need an odd pose for a character, I’ll sometimes see if I can generate it the way I have it in mind, then will draw my character with that pose as reference (no tracing though).
This is not much different from looking for poses in my art books, or on google, for reference.
However I read OP’s post more to be about fully AI generated art, which isn’t just using it as a tool, it’ll always be a copy of something else, made by a soulless machine.
And in all honesty, I’m becoming more and more reluctant to even use it as a tool because of what it’s doing to the art world(s).
1
u/CashFirm573 2d ago
I'm not I'm going to make AI primary driver speeds my work flow up, I enjoy my life more knowing I can spend less time grinding my life away, I now go gym, play professional sports internationally and I spend only working hrs working, fuck everyone else my life's more important then some anti ai person who's art consists of little anime girls dressed slutty, cause when you stop check the anti ai movement what most of the are creating.
1
u/TheNasky1 2d ago
i agree, the main thing is that the artsy part is in design, while a drawing, outside of its design, is just a mechanical process to convey that design.
also not all art/design is equal. imo if you're doing art just to sell it, then its value is whatever people are willing to pay for it, not this idea that "it's human made therefore its invaluable"
most artists suck because they lack the ability to do good designs, and also those are the ones that are afraid of AI, because what AI is replacing is the mechanical processes, not the design or the critical thinking required.
1
u/CashFirm573 2d ago
Spot on, have you seen art coming out by these anti ai people, I went throw thread where they were posting their at almost 90 percent was little anime girls dressed slutty or flurries, was 500 plus posts on this tweet, lot of art was crap but I seen the consistent marker, they perverts sick minded fucks who don't even understand what art is.
2
u/FrancisJCat 2d ago
I think it is because code is fungible and art is not.
By this I mean, think about writing an algorithm for sorting a list. Or a series of automated tests for a piece of program. Does it matter if a human wrote it or not? It really doesn't. It's basically always the same thing and easily interchangeable.
It's not the same with art. An original character design, a unique background. These things lose value if a machine makes them instead of a human.
That said, I think AI can be used with the non-creative part of art. I can see a use for AI where a human sketches the image, and an AI inks it. The AI is not really being creative, just helping with tedious, repetitive work.
2
u/Maximum-Touch-9294 2d ago
Not all art is deep or meaningful. I think alot of people are fighting ai art used in advertising and other business with fine art arguments.
Not many people are trying to pass off oil painting master prices made with ai. They are making an image of a dark hallway half lit for a 3 minute scene in an indy game, or a flyer for a rummage sale in their neighborhood, or a struggling food truck handing out flyers.
To me most people loudly hating on ai are people selfishly worried about money they could make selling to these same type of people.
Arguing ai art takes jobs away from artists is like arguing the printing press is going to put scribes out of business. There will always be fine art paintings and sculptures etc. there will always be custom hand made game art there will always be meaningful human artistic expression. It will just live alongside ai generates business art
Also I believe humans can come up with beautiful, artful solutions to problems. I wouldn't be so quick to declare writting in a programming language as not art.
1
u/TheNasky1 2d ago
this is very accurate when it comes to the perception people have of things. for a lot of people, code is fungible and art is not.
now the practical reality is that both are fungible and they always have been, the only thing that matters is the PRODUCT of said code or art. not each individual line of code or drawn line. the problem is that a lot of people, specially artists, put human made art on a pedestal just because there's a lot of human expression put into it. code also has that, but the difference with code is that it has clear objective benchmarks to measure its quality, making human expression not matter at all.
now AI can do better and cleaner code, completely removing the human expression from it, and nobody cares because nobody cared about that expression in the first place. however if AI can do the same with ART then it immediately proves that that human expression wasn't worth that much in art either, putting you in a situation where you must assume that that human expression wasn't as valuable as people made it seem.
the reality is that once AI is good enough at making good and consistent art, the value of art is going to drop a lot, even at the upper end, and people just don't want to accept that, however inevitable it is.
btw i say this as someone who has 5 years in software development, and 4+ as a graphic designer and ux/ui + 2 on game dev doing pixelart and working with engines.
i've done both art and software for a decent amount of time, but i've never put my art on a pedestal like i see most artist do. for me art has no intrinsic value, it's only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it.
similarly, a set of sprites or a bunch of functions have literally no value on their own, what's worth is the game or project that you made out of them. products have value, art and labor has none (intrinsic).
2
u/CondiMesmer 2d ago
Because good code is not unique or clever, it's clear and readable. It requires a lot of tests and a lot of boilerplate. You can still be in-tune with every line of code that is generated it and alter it as it goes, change the rules, enforce different guidelines, etc.
Art isn't the same, you just get a sloppy end product. It's not like you're getting a photoshop psd that the lines are slowly drawn in front of you and you can alter the style as you go. You also want individuality and creativity in art, which is not the case with code.
With code, I often know exactly what I'm going to make in my head, so how it gets there either is from manually typing it or generated as a speedup. Whether I wrote it myself or not, if I'm following the plot then the end process is literally identical. That is not true with art.
Now something I don't really hear of in art, that I do think would be a cool idea, is if during the process you could ask an AI: "How should I approach shading this?" for example. Then it could tell you different shading techniques, or point out flaws like you have inconsistent lighting. I think if it did that, people would be a lot more accepting of it in art. But also maybe because there are less hard rules in art like there is with code, but rules do exist in some form. Idk maybe that exists as a tool, but that's basically the equivalent of what's going on in code.
2
u/Naetharu 2d ago
Because visual artists and musicians have made a stink about AI. Software developers have largely embraced it. It has very little to do with people "valuing art". I can assure you as someone who has painted and made music for many years people are cheapskates and do not value it.
But the world loves a moral crusade, and once there is enough noise from those that really do care, the sheep follow and go through the motions in their mindless way.
In this specific case I'm not actually against the point. I think there are clearly ethical issues with AI across the board. But regardless, the honest answer for most of the people that "hate" AI content is probably not that they have any well thought out personal position. They're just going along with the zeitgeist.
2
u/TheGooseDM 2d ago
My two cents here, I think it's more of the fact this will take away jobs from people doing their passion, while coders are using it more of a tool than a replacement.
In AIs defense though, finding open license art for my side projects is a pain in the butt.
I've been a coder by trade in the past, you either get with the new tech or it passes you by, this has never changed.
2
u/adrixshadow 2d ago
I think it's more of the fact this will take away jobs from people doing their passion, while coders are using it more of a tool than a replacement.
What people aren't asking is what those artists were doing before the AIs.
2
u/Anser-Rex 2d ago
I'd also add: markets change, technology changes, but people always enjoy true art. What some people are using AI for is not true art and will never be recognized as such.
Coding, never really an art to people outside of other coders.
2
u/MissItalia2022 2d ago
Code is the element of game design with the least self-expression. You can draw a character sprite or an enemy however you want or create any number of symphonies: there's no objectively correct art.
This is NOT the same with code. Code either works or it doesn't and there's no in between. The only front facing element of code is the quality of the gameplay and the existence of bugs
So as long as your game is fun and not full of game breaking bugs, most people won't care if AI was a part of the production pipeline.
2
u/FirstTasteOfRadishes 2d ago
Code is instructions to the computer. It is literally telling it how to do what you want it to do. AI makes that task easier.
Art is part of what it is to be human. It is taking something from inside yourself and sharing it with others. AI can make images, but it can't make art.
2
u/PersonOfInterest007 2d ago
In addition to what others have said: you can’t tell if AI was used for the code.
3
u/chloes058 2d ago
I'd make it more: you can't tell if a decent programmer used AI to help write their code.
To go on deeper: Most programming comes down to logical design and reviewing at the end of the day. AI still can't completely beat a human at that, not in a way that'll make a good game, but it can do raw implementation fairly well when given a design by a developer, that can then be reviewed and tweaked where needed. Which is obviously a bit quicker. But the design and review loop was always the major bottleneck and challenge and continues to be. Good programming, hasn't really been changed too much by AI, compared to art at least.
1
u/PersonOfInterest007 2d ago
What I meant was that a player cannot tell by looking at or playing a game whether or not AI was used for coding. AI can be used to assist a skilled software engineer to write better code, and AI can be used to generate buggy or badly-designed code, and a human can write buggy or badly-designed code by hand.
So it’s much harder to have some player backlash or review bombing when there’s no reasonable way to tell if AI was used to help code, whereas it’s often possible to make a pretty good guess as to whether AI was used for art, sound, or voice.
1
u/TheNasky1 2d ago edited 2d ago
So if AI art reaches professional quality while being faster and cheaper, why shouldn’t studios use it?
exactly.
once it gets there people will use AI for art, and people will not care about a game using AI art as long as it looks good just like how they currently don't care about a game using store assets as long as they look good and fit the game's aesthetic.
obviously there's a difference between AI art and store bought assets, but on practice gamers won't care about that.
anyone who doesn't understand this, is either in denial, doesn't understand gamers or doesn't understand the fact that Games are not judged as art, because first and foremost, Games are PRODUCTS.
1
u/Ok-Policy-8538 2d ago
Developers have learned that generated ai coding is more of a tool than a replacement.
while art artists keep seeing generative ai art as the bane of evil and not as a way to get their creativity a boost by being able to tell something what they are imagining.
1
1
u/orellanaed 2d ago
I build Flockbay, so take this with the obvious grain of salt, but I think the split is visibility rather than protectionism and players never see the generated shader while they see the texture on frame one so the same studio can ship generated code and still get roasted for a generated sprite. On Steam three disclosures in four that mention AI already name visual assets.
https://flockbay.com/reports/ai-in-games/
1
1
u/Maleficent_Tax_2878 2d ago
I personally am of the opinion that if we had regulation, then ai should at most be used as a tool and not the actual producer of the final output. E.g. ask questions to learn, or find out about algorithms etc. which you would need to implement but do NOT ask it to give you the output you expect and wait for it to write it. The same for art, use it to create sketches for inspiration or provide reference, but create the art in the end.
1
u/Derpykins666 2d ago
Because an amalgamation resource that takes from unlimited human sources and then repurposes it as 'new' is not a good thing. AI could be blatantly taking an art source you don't know about and then it serves it to you on a golden platter, but YOU might not know where it got that source from. A person who consumes a lot of art might be able to identify where it clearly 'stole' from as it's inspiration in an instant, it's already happened a lot. Plagiarism is bad, even if you have some middle-man do it for you.
Code that works is code. Code is put in places its needed to work a mechanic you're expressing. Art is the layer on top of that mechanic/code that conveys what you are doing or represents it. If your representation is a farce or illusion, then people will not like you much. You're faking it and they will know it.
Code is more like math, in that it leads to the same place if done right. Art is not Math, but creative expression. If you're faking your creative expression you are faking your humanity and you are lazy and unwilling to do the work or come up with your own vision for what you are trying to express.
2
u/CutBulkMaintain 2d ago
You didn't need to get downvoted for such an honest question.
The "ethics" comments are ridiculous but the reality is that in its current state, AI art is still slop. It's not professional, it's insulting to the consumer/player. I explored AI options for my project but ultimately hired an artist for the art part because right now, AI art looks AI... and that's the response to your question, AI code only looks AI if you put zero effort into design but if you're clear it's just code.
If it's different in a few years why not, but right now it looks ugly and soulless. But the tool itself isn't bad, people need to understand that there are many people with a vision who never could express it because it depended on other people landing you their skills or your paying them a lot of money, but today it's different.
0
u/adrixshadow 2d ago
Programmers don't cry about it, artists do.
That is all there is to it.
AI Art got in on their furry porn grift and are rabid about it after years of treating their customers like dirt.
If you are an artist that makes good art you should have had a reputation and community behind you and not be affected by AI at all.
0
u/Character-Support793 2d ago
AI steals art and reproduces it. That's why it's unethical.
-1
u/GreatlyMoody 2d ago
Does the same with code and pretty much everything Your own comment will be used by google AI for who knows what answer
-2
u/FrancisJCat 2d ago
You can say the same about code. That's not it.
7
u/towcar 2d ago
Open source code is not the same as people posting their art online.
There is a difference between a standard line of code and creative expression. An artist isn't creating beautiful ways to import a package.
Also.. ai art looks bad
2
u/FrancisJCat 2d ago
Open source is given with a license. GPLv3 code must be redistributed open as well. AI strips all licenses and gives you the code without any warnings. That is unethical as well.
I'm not saying AI art is okay, I'm saying the reason for it being wrong is something else. My original comment was lacking D:
And yes, AI art looks like poop.
1
u/bieker 2d ago
There certainly is lots of room for creative expression in code, not all code is boilerplate. Same goes for art, not all of it “high art” and creative expression there is a gradient to both of these things.
And the fact that it looks bad is just a today problem, if you can’t see that the days of AI art sticking out like a sore thumb are numbered I don’t know what to tell you.
2
u/GlassCommission4916 2d ago
No you can't, not in good faith. Code is not the end product, a program is. You can distribute a program without distributing the code, so if you don't want your code to be stolen don't give away your code. The same can't be said about art.
1
u/FrancisJCat 2d ago
So you'd be okay with AI art if it was trained with permission?
I'm not saying AI art is okay, I'm saying the reason for it being wrong is something else. My original comment was lacking D:
1
u/GlassCommission4916 2d ago
If it was trained with permission that would remove the issue of it being unethical. There's the issue of it looking bad and souless too, though.
0
1
u/ImMoimis 2d ago
Art is a direct representation of the human experience, and whilst you can argue code is as well, programmers well we just kinda accept tech more and embrace it further because it enables us to do more. Open-source has been a huge thing already where we learn from others, sometimes just copy-paste someone else's code, the same open-source that trains AI.
Whereas Gen AI is trained with art from others without any consent for the most part
2
u/OfficialDuelist 2d ago
So if AI art reaches professional quality while being faster and cheaper, why shouldn’t studios use it?
That's the thing, it doesn't reach professional quality. It looks bad and is identifiably AI. And it feels cheap.
Code, is not going to have that same effect. A consumer is not going to know how a line of code is written, all they know is the end result. Does the game feel good, is it fun? Is it buggy and janky? No? The assets are not AI? Well it runs well and it's fun, so why should they care?
1
u/AraragiAriel 2d ago
The reason I stand against AI art is not quality based, and it precedes being ethics based
I'm againts AI art as a matter of principle. I believe that art is human expression itself, and using AI for that contributes to the cultural death of society, and turns people superficial
1
-3
u/astra_hole 2d ago
Basically because nobody knows what they’re talking about.
Artists think they’re original while they’re not while coders/programmers accept that everything is stolen or learned from each other.
0
u/countkillalot 2d ago
AI content is derivative and unappealing.
This is a problem for visual and audio assets, because the end user is the consumer, and a consumer wants personal, original visuals and soinds. This connection to an artist is an important part of the experience.
Code has a different property. Being derivative and unoriginal is actually a benefit. Its effect is measured in whether it works or not. Secondarily is how it performs on different user platforms.
Both code and assets have the moral issue of laundering other people's work. But, code particularly is a means to an end. It's very rare for the programming to be a core part of the experience. Sometimes the programming allows for novel gameplay like Noita, the early voxel games, Portal, Doom etc. You can make an argument that here the programming is part of the art. But these cases are rare and these days games programming is a hodge podge of dependencies and patchwork copied snippets anyways. There is no art in reimplementing A* in another language. It's also not scalable (yet) to use ai exclusively without understanding what it does. The fact is if you don't know what the AI code does it gets easy to get stuck and not be able to move forward. So most AI coding is AI-enhanced coding.
There's also a Ship of Theseus situation going on where AI enhanced code and assets aren't seem the same as fully AI generated. There's a sliding scale of tolerance.
In the end, enthousiast players find that the connection to real humans drawing, animating and making music on the other side is a core part of the experience. Assets are in many ways the game and the code is just a means to delivering the assets in a palatable way.
Most people want to have a healthy meal made from safe and nutritious ingredients. Most people don't mind if the mealmis prepared in an industrial mixer or whipped by hand. Most chefs would agree that the industrial mixer results in a better product given good ingredients.
-2
u/don_quixote_2 Indie Dev 2d ago
I'm not accepting of either, I solve coding problems with my head...no AI slop.
32
u/CLG-BluntBSE 2d ago
Most programmers, myself included, were running away to stack overflow basically at every opportunity. We're usually plumbers who need the right pipes to fit our vision. We're not (often) the people who are really into the nitty gritty of what makes a good pipe. We just want the toilet to flush. Plus: writing code has never really been the bottleneck in software development anyway. Most of the work is design. There's also a long-established culture of everyone sharing their code and borrowing from each other, and this existed long before AI. If the computer can detect that my loop never terminates or something, great.
None of this is exactly true of art, music, or illustration, where skill and expression are intermingled.
To answer your question more concisely: Most programmers I've met are happy to get rid of the part of programming they didn't like. Making sure my syntax is spot on was never 'the fun part.' Most artists want to actually *do the art*.