Mihir Patel retweeted
This 100%
I stand with House House
-Indie dev encounters issues at the end of their development cycle
-indie dev attempts to troubleshoot said issues
-indie dev consults the MANUFACTURER of their game engine, THEY can't solve their issues
-as a last-ditch effort to avoid shipping a game with a glitch they can't iron out, they spitball with an LLM
-surprisingly, LLM assists in workarounds that fix said issues
-despite not needing to disclose (per steam TOS), the dev is honest about their disclosure when nominated for awards to be transparent.
I would say House House did everything right. An LLM was used to solve problems humans could not. It didnt generate assets. It didnt infringe on the creative process.
I hate what AI, and particularly GenAI has done to the gaming industry, but this is a stupid fucking hill to die on. This isn't vibe coding. This isn't slop. This is what AI was SUPPOSED to do in industry.
Pick the right battles, people.
Mihir Patel retweeted
If you do this and genuinely believe it's good, you do not have the ability to grasp what art or beauty genuinely is and you should stay far away from it.
Mihir Patel retweeted
All this controversy around AI in game dev is exhausting. I'm about to take a big walk off the side of a building if we keep having to go through this.
Mihir Patel retweeted
Long read. Read everything.
1. Fuck off.
2. Fuck you.
3. Spotify could have opened UGC capabilities so each HUMAN-MADE remix can be attached to the original artist and label, *but no*. These fuckwads would rather eat up the stream revenue bec all the genAI profits go to THEM.
Spotify just announced a feature that could either save the music industry or destroy it.
Starting as early as Q1 2027, Spotify Premium subscribers will be able to use AI to transform any participating artist’s song into a completely different version. Turn a folk ballad into a dance track. Make a hip-hop song sound acoustic. Generate a cover where one artist’s voice performs another artist’s song. Remix a pop hit into lo-fi study music. Create the version of your favorite song that only existed in your head until now.
The remixes will be uploaded directly to Spotify. They’ll appear in playlists. They’ll count toward the original song’s chart position. And most importantly the original artist will earn royalties every time someone listens to a fan-created remix of their work.
Spotify has already signed a landmark licensing deal with Universal Music Group the world’s largest record label. Negotiations with Sony Music and Warner Music are ongoing. The feature will cost an additional $4–$5/month on top of Spotify Premium. And analysts project 7–8% of American subscribers will adopt it by 2028.
This is not Suno or Udio generating music from text prompts. This is fans remixing real songs by real artists with the artists’ permission, on the world’s largest streaming platform, with royalties flowing back to the creators.
A music industry analyst who’s covered streaming economics for 15 years told her team something after reading the licensing agreement that reframed how she understood the future of recorded music.
“Spotify just turned 640 million listeners into 640 million potential remixers. The question isn’t whether people will use it they will. The question is whether paying artists for fan remixes solves the economics of streaming or creates a world where the original recording is worth less than the infinite remixes generated from it.”
Here’s what Spotify’s AI remix feature actually is, who wins, who loses, and why this might be the most consequential decision in the music industry since the launch of streaming itself 🧵
Big tech doesn't care about destroying lives, communities, and well...everything if it means a huge IPO payday and their egos being stroked.
Corporate America ... same, same.
Their greed literally kills millions of people around the world every year.
Mihir Patel retweeted
Replying to @NotLancerReal @SonicHeroesPeak
While I personally have trouble with not responding myself, which is something I'm working on, especially being someone with a short fuse sometimes, I would at least hope for someone to not get involved past that point as it again just causes hate, there's too much of that
Mihir Patel retweeted
imo its not "anti-ai psychosis" in the same way that ai psychosis is psychosis i think it's just that a lot of people who are rightfully angry about ai's prevalence aren't actually educated on what it is enough to focus that anger anywhere meaningful or productive
Mihir Patel retweeted
best take on the whole situation by FAR
The discourse around Big Walk has made it abundantly clear to me that all existing AI discourse revolves around how poorly introduced AI was. Instead of focusing on a tools-first approach, AI companies focused on stupid content generation shit which produced some of the worst garbage ever seen on the internet. Time for a stupid rant about AI from me.
I want to make a few things clear:
- Yes, all reasonable people agree that AI generated artwork/media is soulless garbage in its current state. Unless there was substantial effort on the part of the human behind it (e.g. the shape store) it has no original vision or cohesion.
- Programming can 100% be an artform. But it also covers a wide breadth of technical knowledge. Even with my own CSCI degree, there's still a lot of shit that I personally didn't know how to do, and there weren't a lot of great on-boarding guides out there for those things.
- House House did not do anything wrong here, they are airing far more on the side of caution than they frankly need to at this point. I think their reluctance to disclose this was justified given how massively overblown the reaction has been. They frankly shouldn't have done so.
--
Programming and Art both have incredibly monotonous elements to them. Art is a lot more freeform and expressive, but programming at scale (especially in gamedev) is a logistical clusterfuck where you have to juggle dozens, if not hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of things around with all sorts of rigid scripts and build chains, configurations, etc.
No one is having fun writing a CMake file, no one enjoys writing python scripts to organize and curate data, even if it's something they're good at. Programmers have complained for years about the logistical bullshit they have to deal with, and now they don't have to.
This is the key difference between the shitty generative usage everyone knows AI for, and the pragmatic usage of AI as a tool that programmers are using it for. Generative AI art literally only exists for cynical reasons, and it deserves the hate it gets. It actually puts people out of a job, and doesn't function as a tool to accelerate artists in any way, merely to replace them.
Programmers aren't replaced by AI, they are accelerated by it. We can use generative AI to rapidly drive the creation of scripts and toolchains to solve logistical problems much faster than we'd normally be able to on our own, allowing us to focus less on monotonous bullshit, and more on the fun elements of system archetyping, technical design, and steering all of the logistics together. Instead of needing to hand-write all our scripts, we can just describe the problems we're trying to solve, provide contextual files, and it can stitch everything together.
It also grants a wider scope of accessibility to the breadth of technical knowledge in the industry, some of which is gatekept behind being in said industry. If there are things that we may not actually know how to do (because it's low-level or system specific), the agent has a deep knowledge resouvoir it can tap into. Then we can review it, restylize it by hand to understand it, and start iterating by hand from there.
Having performance problems? The agent is good at finding shit and optimizing. Having trouble finding a bug? Describe it and the agent can look through the code and work out what the problem likely is, and it can even test the code and build isolated test cases to get things working as intended. It's a wonderful tool that saves a lot of mental strain. For people like me with limited attention and energy, it helps a fuck ton.
--
Anyway, my point isn't to shill AI, it's your choice whether you use it or not. My focus here was more illustrating why AI is different for programmers versus artists. Ultimately, this moral grandstanding over other people's choice to use AI to assist in their work has become so overblown that it's genuinely irritating.
If you refuse to play a game just because someone has interacted with AI in the course of development, then you might as well get mad at them for using Google, or stack overflow, or books instead of paying someone to solve their problem instead. Clearly we're so fucking deep into late stage capitalism, money always has to be a barrier to solving problems.
And if your issue is with how much electricity and water is being consumed, push for all of that generative shit to be priced out in favor of AI as a tool for accelerating human hands in the creation of content. I agree that we should not be building compute centers in people's backyards, but the water consumption is a distration from things that are causing far more harm on the environment.
Mihir Patel retweeted
To close, here are some words from someone way smarter than me, Mr. Linus Torvalds himself:
Mihir Patel retweeted
The discourse around Big Walk has made it abundantly clear to me that all existing AI discourse revolves around how poorly introduced AI was. Instead of focusing on a tools-first approach, AI companies focused on stupid content generation shit which produced some of the worst garbage ever seen on the internet. Time for a stupid rant about AI from me.
I want to make a few things clear:
- Yes, all reasonable people agree that AI generated artwork/media is soulless garbage in its current state. Unless there was substantial effort on the part of the human behind it (e.g. the shape store) it has no original vision or cohesion.
- Programming can 100% be an artform. But it also covers a wide breadth of technical knowledge. Even with my own CSCI degree, there's still a lot of shit that I personally didn't know how to do, and there weren't a lot of great on-boarding guides out there for those things.
- House House did not do anything wrong here, they are airing far more on the side of caution than they frankly need to at this point. I think their reluctance to disclose this was justified given how massively overblown the reaction has been. They frankly shouldn't have done so.
--
Programming and Art both have incredibly monotonous elements to them. Art is a lot more freeform and expressive, but programming at scale (especially in gamedev) is a logistical clusterfuck where you have to juggle dozens, if not hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of things around with all sorts of rigid scripts and build chains, configurations, etc.
No one is having fun writing a CMake file, no one enjoys writing python scripts to organize and curate data, even if it's something they're good at. Programmers have complained for years about the logistical bullshit they have to deal with, and now they don't have to.
This is the key difference between the shitty generative usage everyone knows AI for, and the pragmatic usage of AI as a tool that programmers are using it for. Generative AI art literally only exists for cynical reasons, and it deserves the hate it gets. It actually puts people out of a job, and doesn't function as a tool to accelerate artists in any way, merely to replace them.
Programmers aren't replaced by AI, they are accelerated by it. We can use generative AI to rapidly drive the creation of scripts and toolchains to solve logistical problems much faster than we'd normally be able to on our own, allowing us to focus less on monotonous bullshit, and more on the fun elements of system archetyping, technical design, and steering all of the logistics together. Instead of needing to hand-write all our scripts, we can just describe the problems we're trying to solve, provide contextual files, and it can stitch everything together.
It also grants a wider scope of accessibility to the breadth of technical knowledge in the industry, some of which is gatekept behind being in said industry. If there are things that we may not actually know how to do (because it's low-level or system specific), the agent has a deep knowledge resouvoir it can tap into. Then we can review it, restylize it by hand to understand it, and start iterating by hand from there.
Having performance problems? The agent is good at finding shit and optimizing. Having trouble finding a bug? Describe it and the agent can look through the code and work out what the problem likely is, and it can even test the code and build isolated test cases to get things working as intended. It's a wonderful tool that saves a lot of mental strain. For people like me with limited attention and energy, it helps a fuck ton.
--
Anyway, my point isn't to shill AI, it's your choice whether you use it or not. My focus here was more illustrating why AI is different for programmers versus artists. Ultimately, this moral grandstanding over other people's choice to use AI to assist in their work has become so overblown that it's genuinely irritating.
If you refuse to play a game just because someone has interacted with AI in the course of development, then you might as well get mad at them for using Google, or stack overflow, or books instead of paying someone to solve their problem instead. Clearly we're so fucking deep into late stage capitalism, money always has to be a barrier to solving problems.
And if your issue is with how much electricity and water is being consumed, push for all of that generative shit to be priced out in favor of AI as a tool for accelerating human hands in the creation of content. I agree that we should not be building compute centers in people's backyards, but the water consumption is a distration from things that are causing far more harm on the environment.
Mihir Patel retweeted
It's fairly safe to assume *most* games you play nowadays will use AI in some way.
We need to be clear on what our lines are - if it's no AI tools at all for you, that's 100% fine.
For me, it's the generative AI aspect; I don't want AI making decisions, artwork, music, ideas.
Mihir Patel retweeted
People, here's a simple image I made about the topic if you are gonna be Anti AI for game development.
House House clarifies use of AI tools in Big Walk's "final stage of development"
Studio issues statement after group of 2027 IGF jurors decline to vote for games that use generative AI during development
gamesindustry.biz/house-hous…
Mihir Patel retweeted
Replying to @TenshiTori03
The useful distinction isn't AI versus artistry; it's whether the tool changes the creative decisions you're accountable for.
A small assist at the final stage still needs disclosure and consent from collaborators, but it doesn't erase the rest of the craft.
Mihir Patel retweeted
Just went on a long blocking spree.
It's gotta be embarrassing to use that computer rendered crap on the daily right? It all looks so shit. With so many people using it also it all looks so similar too. Just man you should be ashamed
No generated images from me
Respect artists
Mihir Patel retweeted
Being someone that in the middle of "don't use ai for everything crowd" vs "use ai for everything crows" Kinda weird ngl, y'all forgot gray option exists??
Mihir Patel retweeted
Let me make my stance clear just in case my moots think I'm pro-AI.
I'm not.
I am especially very anti genAI when it comes to any type of art (drawing, writing, music, etc)
But I genuinely can't be bothered to care if someone used it in software dev (when it comes to code) (1/2)
Mihir Patel retweeted
Replying to @lilbluecaboose
People who don't understand this haven't worked for a big tech company
I see people being like "devs are so lazy"
YES THEY ARE!
Before AI they used to copy code from other places to use in their own apps. This is why AI code doesn't phase me, software development has always
Mihir Patel retweeted
As an artist, fuck AI. As a coder.... it's too undeniable powerful and honestly unavoidable. The way house house used it is very, very clean. They deserve no hate.
Big Walk used AI in 'the final stretch' of development, kicking off intense awards debate:
aftermath.site/big-walk-ai-i…
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
House House used LLMs sparingly near the end of Big Walk's development, mainly to fix bugs in third-party code. They estimate well under 0.1% of the game's code was affected, and they didn't use generative AI elsewhere.
bigwalk.game/faq/#ai
pcgamer.com/games/puzzle/b…






























