4 ms·
I don't quite understand but it's the worst way to create anything. Actually there is no creation at all, and you can't change it unless by trying another promp
by JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
I don't quite understand but it's the worst way to create anything. Actually there is no creation at all, and you can't change it unless by trying another prompt so that the AI will create it for you. There are literally a billion Flash games and abandonware that are better than this.
> I didn’t write a single line of code, and the entire process took less than an hour and about 20 iterations.
If you want to discover something, do the tiniest activity and learn how to display a sprite in TIC-80, it's the "atom" of writing a game. If you don't want to do this, admit that you don't want to do anything and buy a Switch or a PlayStation.
I would never say "I learned to play the violin by buying an audio-CD," or "I wrote the next Metroid game in less than one hour, all I had to do was ask for Nintendo to generate it for me and I gave them my credit card number."
- j4coh 2y agoIt’s some advanced and terrible form of consumerism, really. Actual artists are removed from the equation and lazy people with no particular talents get the illusion of creation, for a fee, no hard work or anything uncomfortable required. It’s obviously going to be a huge hit.
- westmeal 2y agoI don't mind if people want to consume toxic slop. Its their business lol
- anonzzzies 2y agoHow is there not a middle ground; I learn faster from examples. I learned both BASIC and assembly in the early 80s by typing in sourcecode from magazines and then changing it to see what happened. I still prefer that. Of course, if you just let the LLM write stuff without even reading it, let alone debugging/changing it, you might as well not see the code and you did not learn anything, but that's not how many people use LLMs (mostly because they cannot actually deliver on that currently of course).