And yet, curiously, they fall flat on their silicone asses until they have a copy of the test to "train on".

75 years and counting and considering we don't have any plan to get to a single one of those things, I'm going to say 75 years. Computation alone is at least 30 years. You may not appreciate the complexity of biological systems, but single cell organisms have more capability to adapt than LLMs.

Isn't that primarily what they offer anyway? So "subscription required" would check that box.

Maybe they'll ask for a "slower pace of development" so it doesn't look as much like they're just asking for new regulatory barriers on their competition.

I am 100% certain the code you write by hand will be better quality, even with AI pointing out options, than letting the AI string together completely obtuse abstractions.

GP here, hopefully you are correct.

I have two projects running concurrently. One is my hand-written project. The other is one "demolition zone." In the latter, I can vibe-code and do whatever I want just to see what LLMs can hack away at in comparison.

Besides the enjoyment I get from programming by hand, I have a more overarching concern when it comes to a building a full game. I am using Monogame, and I realized that is probably not the library to use if I am going to have no understanding of how things work under the hood. I tried to review LLM code, but without knowing enough of Monogame's API, I really couldn't make a good judgement call on the quality.

Looking at the LLM code, for example, were the keyboard and game pad implementations correct? I am not sure at first glance. I haven't implemented one since I used C++ in a game dev class in college over 12 years ago. The LLM's tests passed, which is fine and dandy, but how do I know the tests are truly valid if I do not understand what is fundamentally being tested?

I am not building this game entirely for fun either (though I am having a blast). I am working with a few non-technical friends on making this game. So, I do not want to disappoint them by creating something with bugs that I cannot fix because I have no earthly clue how anything works. I believe that would be embarrassing for me and disrespectful to them.

> The LLM's tests passed, which is fine and dandy, but how do I know the tests are truly valid if I do not understand what is fundamentally being tested?

Do what I do sometimes: use opaque pointers (in C, or C++), and don't give the LLM the implementation, give them only the header, when asking it for tests.

I've lost count of the number of times I'll give only the header, but the LLM insists it needs to see the implementation as well in order to write the tests.

If you're not using C or C++, well, then write interfaces, give that to the LLM.

Yup. More hype mania from someone with a financial interest in people abdicating their thought to AI.

Rapid, empty, and poorly integrated code that appears to work but no one bothers to understand is much less valuable than everyone seems to believe.

It's something an LLM would never be able to come up with because it requires a depth of experience that LLMs just don't have. It's authentically human.

This makes more sense. Automatic loss for the offending parent.

In which case, abusive parents can use the rule to retaliate against their children. Never define a rule that gives bad actors power to dictate policy. (Note: this criticism doesn't seem to apply to the actual rule.)

Result is a permanent cancellation? Does that mean the match is nullified or the winner at the time wins? Either way, one team could draw a strategic black card. Seems like cancellation of the match is not the correct outcome. What about penalizing the harassing team? A red card result for the team (down a player for the next game). This seems like an odd way to handle abusive behavior from parents. Abandoning the current game may be good if parents are behaving that way, but there needs to be a serious consequence for the parent's team too. Otherwise it will just be another tool.

Abandoned matches are reviewed by the relevant league, and depending on the reason and circumstances the match can be replayed, resumed, or adjudicated. When a side is judged to be at fault, the outcome is often a default 3-0 loss for them, on top of assorted punishments for the players/coaches/teams involved.

For other kinds of match cancellations with an offending party (example: having too many players sent off), the offending party automatically loses.

I expect it to be the same here, with the referee deciding who the offending party is.

Why are you assuming abuse by parents is solely being targeted at the opposing team’s players? Parents may just as well be shouting at their own kid for what they see as “sub-optimal” play, and at their kid’s teammates for what they see as “getting in their kid’s way.”

I'm not sure why you think I was assuming that. Or why either of those wouldn't be a valid reason their actions shouldn't result in punishment the most direct way possible to the parent. A loss for their own team. That's not a good outcome for someone who treats their kid as a lottery ticket no matter who they were harassing. Although I do understand the response in a sibling post that it still gives the asshat parent some degree of control over policy and outcome. It seems like you may have mistaken some of what I said as implying something about the recipient of the abuse. Nothing I said had anything to do with the recipient of abuse. Just the parent and the team they want to win for vicarious satisfaction.