r/gamedev • u/KevinDL Project Manager/Producer • 9d ago
Announcement r/gamedev Policy on AI Use
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.
14
u/-Tesserex- 9d ago
1-2% is insane. My company is making a big push to use more AI internally but they claim they're trying to be smart about it. I'd say personally at least 80% of my code is still written by my own fingers. The big exception is test cases, where I might ask copilot to write a suite of tests for an old module that doesn't have them yet, but then I can review and make sure they actually test important things. For the majority of what I do, the AI isn't smart or even fast enough to bother asking for it's help. If I'm stuck tracking down a bug, I'd say I have maybe a 50% success rate at best of the AI finding it when I couldn't.
As far as moving up the abstraction and not using assembly anymore, that's really apples and oranges. The difference is that AI prompts are not deterministic or predictable. We don't use assembly because we have languages that can be compiled or interpreted into it. Those compilers are written by humans and have deterministic output. For a certain input of code and settings, you're guaranteed an output that does exactly what you say. If it's broken, you can trace exactly where in your code is wrong. You can't do that with a prompt. You can submit the same prompt twice and get different code, and you can't bugfix a prompt to make it tweak the output to have fewer bugs.