Changes to Our Contribution Policies | Hacker News Reader

Changes to Our Contribution Policies

godotengine.org

39 pointsfreddydumont10 comments

The part about ai contributions being demoralizing for reviewers because it could otherwise be an opportunity to educate a new contributor is pretty salient imo. Especially with so many people wondering what's going to happen to junior positions in the future.

I read Godot Github every other day since a few years ago, and latelly there is a big ammount of obvious AI PRs and the worst thing is that when they are accused of it they directly deny it or attack the mantainers.

Larger discussion (400+ comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48743472

Good on them! AI-produced "content" is a DDOS attack on human cognition. It takes more time to review than to produce, and the original coders rarely review the output before creating the merge request. And the planet is paying.

Love to see it.

Godot is such a nice project, I feel like almost every release brings stuff with it that is directly useful for me. It feels like the main contributors there are really on the ball.

Big mistake. Its so easy to build out an engine and editor tools with AI now, you could easily surpass godots feature set (for your game) in a week with Claude. With the advantage of it being leaner and easier for agents to navigate. You can see this with the explosion for vibe coded three.js games, AI is really good at building with a leaner framework.

>you could easily surpass godots feature set (for your game) in a week with Claude.

Are you a graphics programmer/ game engine developer by chance? Because I am, and this is one of the most insane statements I've ever heard.

In my day job, I work on a closed source 3D engine. It's certainly no Godot, yet our codebase is still over ~400k lines of code, and I would bet my entire lifes savings that a neophyte using Claude/Codex wouldn't be able to replicate our engine in a years time, let alone a week. Hell, I'm not sure an expert would be able to replicate our engines functionality in a year.

Point being: game engine development is possibly one of hardest niches in software, and nobody is going to vibe code a replacement for the largest open source game engine in a fucking week.

Let's take a moment to put the AI psychosis down and think through your comment:

1. AI is so good that you can get your game working to your vision in a matter of weeks without needing to depend on godot

2. Godot is making a mistake refusing AI contributions

How exactly is godot making a mistake, if AI is so good that godot is defunct anyway?

If that were the case, I think we would have already seen a turbocharged AI fork of Godot by now.

Or, if the machine-generated programming is that good, it shouldn’t be prohibitively difficult to surpass the handwritten version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com