Raw LLM Responses

I can see both perspectives. I hope both sides get to see each others arguments and be considerate to each other. Here is the perspective of somebody from not really the other side, but at least from a programmer and occasional AI user: Just like lesser known artists struggle to make a living out of their art, single programmers rarely succeed in creating their own product and living from it. Usually a project requires years to finish and money only starts flowing after release. For large companies, this is not a problem. For a small indie game studio, it is. But at least there is more than 1 person working on a project so it will have large enough complexity to be worth it for customers to pay for it. For games, you almost always need art. A lot of art. As AI gets better and better, it enables them to generate a lot of it and only pick from the results or fine-tune results. With this method, suddenly it's as if the productivity is doubled. Suddenly a lot more small independent game studios can afford to create games. Suddenly creative game programmers can focus on what they do best: be creative and make new kinds of games. I think in this case, AI generation is a good thing. Some other points of thought from a programmer: "We" are currently automating our own jobs away (or at least the lower skilled half), I am an active participant (at least as my own AI side-project). Learning takes place from the millions of coding projects that are openly available on the internet. In that case, there however is a difference to the AI learning from art: Almost all of the available code is put there voluntarily as open-source projects. Companies that don't want their code seen/learned from can simply not release it publicly. In order to run the code on a processor, it has to be converted to machine-code first, which is then shipped to the user. This machine-code is super-complex to read and therefore it's pretty much impossible to steal their work.