- No text -

I am curious what you will do when AI not only encroaches on your hobbies, but your work? You probably don't edit movies (or whatever medium you edit) with old school film, I assume you use some sort of digital software. I suspect it's more likely than not that software is already being developed and maintained using coding assistants. And it's probably not very far away from having a chat oriented plugin that would allow you to say things like "take 1:03 to 2:03 and merge with 2:45-3:00, color correct as required," at the very least. If so, is your ability to technically manipulate your specific software really the thing that makes you an editor, or is it the decisions you make about how to edit things? If something could help you focus your time on those decisions, rather than the technical limitations of your software, could that not be a good thing?

Of course, it also wouldn't surprise me to find out you use some 15 year old version of your editing software because updates only ruin things (not an unreasonable position given the previous 15 years).

Dude, you are being stubbornly obtuse about this. Multiple people on this forum work with code for a living and have said that it’s useful. Do you think they’re lying?

No, but study after study on professional coders has shown that the ones using AI coding agents estimate they are more productive, when in reality they are less productive overall when you account for everything. It appears to be most effective in doing repetitive tasks rather than solving novel problems.

Are they the exception to the data? Likely not.

In a survey of 49,000 developers, the majority do not trust the accuracy of AI coding agents.

https://stackoverflow.blog/2025/12/29/developers-remain-willing-but-reluctant-to-use-ai-the-2025-developer-survey-res...

The bottleneck appears to be human review of the code, with times and workload increasing when AI coders are used

https://fion.ac/jellyfish.pdf

I'll go by data and not anecdote .

You're mostly right, Cody. AI is not as useful as the hype would make us believe. It's something of a magic trick. It looks like it's doing something it's not, but that doesn't mean it's not doing anything useful.

I won't give you an 80 page paper to read like you gave us, but I will give you Cal Newport. I think he is one of the saner voices on this topic. This article supports some but not all of what you're saying.

AI is going to be good enough for a lot of things. You're a connoisseur of quality. I don't know how discriminating you are about fashion, but it's obvious that a tailored suit is going look better and be superior to something off the rack from Mens Warehouse. But technology made good-enough suits accessible to many people when they need them. Is the world better because of that? I think so, but a high-end fashion designer might not think so. The fashion designer still has a job, though, and people still buy tailored suits.

AI is really good at one thing: pattern recognition. And it's better than anything has ever been at that. That aspect is going to change the world. I believe that many needles in many haystacks are about to be found. In this one aspect, the hype is deserved. And there are many applications for this ability in all kinds of work, including game development.

Newport, at the end of that article, refers to AI as normal technology. That's actually not an original statement (see AI is Normal Technology). That's the space I'm trying to inhabit, but it's tough, with everyone losing their minds in every direction and viewing AI as God or the Devil. I do think we'll be better off if people take a less religious view of it.

Personally, I'm glad to have access to AI. There are a few tasks in my job that I do not enjoy (especially on the administrative side) and AI has made those things less of a burden. Soon it's going to analyze test results that I have to review and give me summaries in seconds. That's the kind of thing that took an hour or two of me combing through details and making notes. I do worry about the misapplication and over reliance on AI, but I don't mind asking it to take care of some of the tedium.

It's worth noting that the survey you linked is from 2025. The tools have vastly improved since then, especially Claude Code. That's part of the reason I'm "optimistic" about their abilities, I've seen them get so much better in real time over the past 9 months. I doubt the tools in 2025 could have vibe coded Halo-in-a-browser, to tie it back to the original post.

I said only that both of the web pages that Cody and I linked to made mention of the fact that the definition of what constituted the first video game was a subject of debate, and that is true.

Okay, but what was the first GOOD video game? Discuss.