Well, it’s not game development, but bugfixes and quality testing.
I dont know, but it does makes sense, when there’s still 30% work being done by human eyes. There will still be people checking everything through.
Even if they hit 50-50, they could put more money into the development.
The argument that they will just save the money only works as long as another company doesnt use it for game devs. Otherwise you naturally fall behind.
It also only works as long as the AI can actually competently do the QA work. This is what an AI thinks a video game is. To do QA, it will have to know that something is wrong, flag it, and be able to tell when it’s fixed. The most likely situation I can foresee is that it creates even more work for the remaining humans to do when they’re already operating at a deficit.
To be fair, that’s what an AI video generator thinks an FPS is. That’s not the same thing as AI-assisted coding. Though it’s still hilarious! “Press F to pay respects” 🤣
For reference, using AI to automate your QA isn’t a bad idea. There’s a bunch of ways to handle such things but one of the more interesting ones is to pit AIs against each other. Not in the game, but in their reports… You tell AI to perform some action and generate a report about it while telling another AI to be extremely skeptical about the first AI’s reports and to reject anything that doesn’t meet some minimum standard.
That’s what they’re doing over at Anthropic (internally) with Claude Code QA tasks and it’s super fascinating! Heard them talk about that setup on a podcast recently and it kinda blew my mind… They have more than just two “Claudes” pitted against each other too: In the example they talked about, they had four: One generating PRs, another reviewing/running tests, another one checking the work of the testing Claude, and finally a Claude setup to perform critical security reviews of the final PRs.
I don’t know what they were testing, but if your output is text, it will be a lot easier for the AI to know it’s correct than any of the plethora of ways that video games can go subtly wrong, and that’s where my lack of faith comes from. Even scraping text from the internet, my experience is more often that AI is confident in its wrong answer than it is helpful.
Well, it’s not game development, but bugfixes and quality testing.
I dont know, but it does makes sense, when there’s still 30% work being done by human eyes. There will still be people checking everything through.
Even if they hit 50-50, they could put more money into the development.
The argument that they will just save the money only works as long as another company doesnt use it for game devs. Otherwise you naturally fall behind.
It also only works as long as the AI can actually competently do the QA work. This is what an AI thinks a video game is. To do QA, it will have to know that something is wrong, flag it, and be able to tell when it’s fixed. The most likely situation I can foresee is that it creates even more work for the remaining humans to do when they’re already operating at a deficit.
To be fair, that’s what an AI video generator thinks an FPS is. That’s not the same thing as AI-assisted coding. Though it’s still hilarious! “Press F to pay respects” 🤣
For reference, using AI to automate your QA isn’t a bad idea. There’s a bunch of ways to handle such things but one of the more interesting ones is to pit AIs against each other. Not in the game, but in their reports… You tell AI to perform some action and generate a report about it while telling another AI to be extremely skeptical about the first AI’s reports and to reject anything that doesn’t meet some minimum standard.
That’s what they’re doing over at Anthropic (internally) with Claude Code QA tasks and it’s super fascinating! Heard them talk about that setup on a podcast recently and it kinda blew my mind… They have more than just two “Claudes” pitted against each other too: In the example they talked about, they had four: One generating PRs, another reviewing/running tests, another one checking the work of the testing Claude, and finally a Claude setup to perform critical security reviews of the final PRs.
I don’t know what they were testing, but if your output is text, it will be a lot easier for the AI to know it’s correct than any of the plethora of ways that video games can go subtly wrong, and that’s where my lack of faith comes from. Even scraping text from the internet, my experience is more often that AI is confident in its wrong answer than it is helpful.