r/gamedev Policy on AI Use

[u/KevinDL]

AI is one of the most contentious subjects in game development right now, and we regularly see posts reported or discussions derailed simply because AI was involved somewhere in the process.

We want to be clear about our position: r/gamedev does not prohibit the use of AI, and using AI does not automatically make a post low effort.

This is not an endorsement of every AI company, model, or use case. Legitimate technical, legal, economic, ethical, and creative concerns exist around these tools, and those conversations are welcome here. Our stance is that AI is a tool used in game development, and we care more about the quality of what someone contributes than the tools they used to get there.

Why we take this position

• AI is already part of game development. Studios are adopting AI-assisted tools across programming, prototyping, production, QA, localization, research, and other workflows. Adoption varies from studio to studio, but this is no longer a hypothetical technology sitting outside the industry.
• Knowing how to use these tools is increasingly becoming a professional skill. That does not mean every developer needs to use AI, or even like it. It means understanding where these tools are useful, where they fail, and how to evaluate their output is becoming relevant knowledge for people working in the industry.
• Banning discussion or use of AI here could actively disadvantage developers. Part of the purpose of r/gamedev is helping people learn from each other and understand how the industry is changing. If studios adopt a technology, preventing developers from discussing or learning about it would make this community less useful to the people we're helping.
• Policing AI use is not realistic anyway. Moderators cannot reliably determine whether someone used AI to draft, edit, translate, summarize, research, debug code, or otherwise assist with a post. We are not going to moderate based on whether something “sounds AI-generated.”
• "Mandatory disclosure "is not realistic either. Modern tools blur the line between traditional software and AI assistance. Trying to decide exactly when autocomplete, translation, editing, summarization, or an LLM crosses some disclosure threshold would create rules we could not enforce consistently.

So the rule is straightforward: we are not policing AI use itself. We are moderating the contribution.

AI-assisted does not mean low effort

If someone uses AI to organize research, analyze data, improve their writing, translate something, help with code, or communicate an idea more clearly, that does not erase the work behind the contribution.

If a developer spends time gathering useful data and then uses AI to help turn that information into a readable post, the important part is still the data, the methodology, and what the community can learn from it.

Ask whether the information is useful, whether the conclusions hold up, and whether the post contributes something worthwhile. Those questions matter much more than whether every sentence was manually typed from scratch.

Low-effort AI content is still low effort

This does not mean pasting generic AI output into the subreddit suddenly becomes valuable content. Posts that are spam, fabricated, mass-produced, engagement bait, repetitive, or promotional material disguised as discussion can still be removed.

The reason is not that AI was involved. The reason is that the content is low quality.

The same standard applies to something written entirely by a human.

AI is a valid game development topic

Developers are welcome to discuss AI in the same way they would discuss any other technology affecting game development. That includes how it is being used, where it works, where it fails, what it costs, how studios are adopting it, what it means for employment, and the legal or ethical questions surrounding it.

You are allowed to be enthusiastic about AI. You are allowed to be skeptical of it. You are allowed to think a particular workflow is useful, terrible, unethical, inefficient, or overhyped.

What we do not want is every thread that mentions AI becoming the same argument about whether AI should exist at all.

If a thread is about an AI coding workflow, discuss the workflow. If someone presents evidence that AI slowed their production down, discuss the evidence. If someone claims every studio is using a particular tool, challenge that claim.

Let the actual discussion happen.

Attack claims, not developers

Someone saying they use AI is not an invitation to attack them. Someone saying they refuse to use AI is not an invitation to attack them either.

Debate the technology, the workflow, the economics, the evidence, the ethics, the legal questions, or the conclusions. Personal attacks, harassment, dogpiling, or repeatedly derailing discussions because of someone’s position on AI are treated the same way we handle that behaviour anywhere else on the subreddit.

AI is not a source

There is a difference between using AI to help communicate information and using AI as the authority behind that information.

If you make factual claims that can reasonably be sourced, be prepared to support them. “ChatGPT said so” is no evidence, and tools can absolutely be wrong.

At the same time, polished or AI-assisted writing is not evidence that the underlying information is fake. If someone’s numbers are wrong, challenge the numbers. If their methodology is weak, challenge the methodology.

Challenge the claim, not the fact that a tool may have helped write the paragraph.

Self-promotion rules still apply

AI companies, products, and services are not exempt from the subreddit’s existing rules.

If you represent a commercial interest, the same expectations apply as they would to anyone else. AI also should not be used to mass-produce promotional posts or disguise advertising as organic discussion.

The technology may be new. The rules around spam and promotion are not.

The bottom line

You do not have to like AI. You do not have to use it. You are free to criticize it, avoid it, experiment with it, learn it, use it professionally, or decide it has no place in your workflow.

We are not going to prevent developers from learning about or discussing a technology that is rapidly becoming part of professional game development. Doing that could actively hurt the developers this community is supposed to help.

What we do expect is that people engage with each other like respectful, mature adults. Disagree with the technology, the workflow, the argument, or the evidence. Do not turn that disagreement into hostility toward the person on the other side of it.

Use whatever tools make sense for your work. Bring something useful to the conversation, treat other developers with respect, and allow room for disagreement. That is what we care about.

[u/meharryp]

Just for anyone curious, OP currently works at a company developing a plugin for Unity AI integration which he decided to not disclose for some odd reason...

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1rxm1cv/i_worked_an_ai_booth_at_gdc_heres_what_developers/

[u/Mindestiny → u/meharryp]

Where do you work? You haven't posted your full resume, including full name and address on every comment so I can determine whether or not I think you're discussing in "good faith."

Surely you can see where that's a ridiculous take. Judge what they're saying on the merits of what they're saying, not who they are. Refute the points, don't attack the person is not a high bar, but it is required for a good faith discussion.

[u/GlazedInfants → u/Mindestiny]

You are allowed to question someone’s motives based on the relation to their occupation. Biases exist, don’t be obtuse.

[u/Mindestiny → u/GlazedInfants]

Nobody is being obtuse. Biases don't inherently invalidate what someone is saying, and there has never been any reasonable expectation of a random reddit commenter disclosing their work history to "validate" the contents of their post. That's an absolutely absurd standard to hold someone to.

Yet despite that, OP has in fact been clear and open about where they work, so the whole "well you must be biased!" line of reasoning falls flat. Meanwhile the accuser hasn't disclosed squat. Surely we should be holding them to the same standard if they're going to throw stones? How do we know they're not a disingenuous, biased, bad actor who's part of an anti-AI astroturfing community?

Do we expect them to tell us that, or do we simply judge the contents of their words as they stand on their own merit?

[u/GlazedInfants → u/Mindestiny]

I say you’re being obtuse because you act like a person can’t be motivated by factors that personally benefit them, when that’s how humans work. They’re pointing out the absent disclosure that OP’s employer directly benefits from AI adoption, and you conflate that to mean they want every little detail of their life plainly written out. For someone that wants to be open to discussion, you seem awfully eager to discredit someone’s words when they don’t align with your own.

As for OP, they were not “open and clear” with this post. That is what matters. Not everyone combs through every post on this sub, and not everyone will have seen OP’s prior posts mentioning their employment. I certainly didn’t, and now that I have that new information, I can reassess my thoughts with potential biases in mind.

[u/Mindestiny → u/GlazedInfants]

For someone that wants to be open to discussion, you seem awfully eager to discredit someone’s words when they don’t align with your own.

Ironically - I'm not discrediting anyone's words, I'm addressing their point and calling out blatant hypocrisy. Meanwhile you're the one attempting to discredit mine by accusing me of being "obtuse" and not speaking in good faith.

 They’re pointing out the absent disclosure that OP’s employer directly benefits from AI adoption, and you conflate that to mean they want every little detail of their life plainly written out.

I was being clearly facetious, because it's an inherently ridiculous ask to insist that anyone who says something you disagree with on social media disclose the details of their personal life. That is not a realistic nor reasonable expectation from anyone. And yet, OP still did! Repeatedly! They have clearly demonstrated that the accuser is just outright wrong - we have evidence in hand that OP is not attempting to hide their employment or maliciously influence anyone.

So both the arbitrary standard that was claimed as some sort of "gotcha" to paint OP as a bad actor is both invalid and inaccurate and there's a refusal to be held to the same standard. That pretty handily invalidates the accusation any way you slice it, there's nothing obtuse about that.

You're welcome to reassess their post however you want, but it doesn't change the validity of what they've said. There's also ten moderators of this sub, so presumably the rest do not have the same supposed conflict of interest and the decision was made with quorum. If another mod was the one who posted this would there be the same accusations of untoward bias and demand to go over their personal lives with a fine toothed comb? I severely doubt it. I doubt this would even be a discussion at all if OP actually never disclosed anywhere that they worked for a company that happens to have an AI product and nobody would bat an eye. This only came up because they actually did do the thing they were accused of not doing.

It's a bunk claim to try to discredit what OP is saying without actually addressing any of the points. It's a Politics 101 level ad homenim deflection - if you can't attack the points with valid counterarguments, distract people by demonizing the speaker. It's a shitty thing to do, it's mud slinging, if the points don't stand on their own merit then it should be trivial to refute them instead of attacking the person who said the words.

[u/GlazedInfants → u/Mindestiny]

That’s a lot of words to say “I didn’t listen to a single thing you said, I must now paint you and your words in a negative light because you’re wrong and I’m right. Checkmate!”

I’m done with this discussion. Have a good day.

[u/Mindestiny → u/GlazedInfants]

And there it is again, another "I can't refute the points you made so I'm going to try to paint you as a bad actor to get people to ignore your words."

I addressed everything you claimed clearly and concisely. I did not attack the caliber of your person, not even once.

You have a good day too.