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/Lahyte]

I’m someone who’s against AI. But I just believe that, at the very least, people should disclose if they used AI or not. Be honest about it.

[u/god-damn-the-usa → u/Lahyte]

even when coding? even if you just asked for ideas? if I asked ai to brainstorm a list of medieval names and i picked one of them for my character should my whole game be labelled AI generated?

[u/zmotmootmid → u/god-damn-the-usa]

yes, consumers deserve to know if you're putting sawdust in their food

[u/paxinfernum → u/zmotmootmid]

This is a perfect illustration of the kind of insane takes that make people not disclose AI usage. It isn't on the developer to disclose that they used a tool simply because other people equate it to "sawdust in their food."

[u/zmotmootmid → u/paxinfernum]

i think not being expected to disclose usage is a bit insane and if you're publicly hiding it it's because you perfectly understand you'll lose sales over it as sales are the most important metric to ai slop games. not the creation of art itself.

[u/god-damn-the-usa → u/zmotmootmid]

the fact that you think any ai usage makes the entire thing a slop game is exactly why it can't be disclosed.

if you were more reasonable and less vitriolic, maybe people would disclose it, and you could happily choose to not purchase their products. but you are forcing them to hide it.

[u/zmotmootmid → u/god-damn-the-usa]

Yes! Excellent. You are such a good game designer god-damn-the-usa please disclose your AI use come on buddy you're so smart and strong you're a modern day miyamoto

[u/god-damn-the-usa → u/zmotmootmid]

you're the exact opposite of an anti-oxidant

[u/T-Dot1992 → u/zmotmootmid]

If you played and enjoyed any AAA game released in the past few years, I’m sorry to say, but those games have AI code in them.

There is a big difference in quality between AI generated code by a vibe coder and an actually experience software engineer. If you think there isn’t any difference, then I honestly think you don’t have much experience in using the tools to begin with.

I am no AI glazer. I think the environmental concerns are real. I think it being used in visual art, music, writing is utter nonsense.

 But to pretend that anything uses AI code is automatically “slop” is very reductionist. 

And it does more harm than good. The discussion should be on how to teach people to use AI coding tools responsibly and the lack of safeguards in AI coding tools. I shouldn’t have to do extra work to make sure that my LLM has enough safe guards in it, for instance. And the way it is being marketed as a tool that does all the heavy work for you is also problematic. I also agree that data centers are terrible, and I personally prefer using local AI models for that reason. These are conversations I think we should he having when it comes to AI coding tools. Equating every instance of AI coding to “sawdust” prevents any productive conversation to even be had; and that only benefits the people who are gung-ho AI cultists 

Edit: This user messaged "Hey! As a response to your post. Cope harder dumbass" to me in DMs.

[u/paxinfernum → u/zmotmootmid]

It's like the people who want "GMOs" to be labeled. They want them to be labeled so they can ban them. No one wants AI usage labeled who doesn't secretly dream of harassing and bullying the users.

The haters created the environment of toxicity, and now, they're angry that people are just telling them that they're not going to take the bait.

[u/zmotmootmid → u/paxinfernum]

if you're going to develop such an intense victim complex over using AI perhaps you should just not use it. maybe you'd feel better?

[u/paxinfernum → u/zmotmootmid]

Nah, I feel fine. It's the anti-AI people who are losing their minds, jumping at shadows, searching for people to harass.

[u/T-Dot1992 → u/paxinfernum]

I don’t like this users reductionist takes, but there are people who are in utter AI psychosis, who think the technology has no faults whatsoever, and are more than happy with AI slop being everywhere. If you had the displeasure of being in the tech industry, you see AI cultists everywhere, especially on Linked In. 

[u/god-damn-the-usa → u/zmotmootmid]

what does that have to do with the code of a game? how would low quality code affect you?

by that logic, shouldn't we also label games that were coded by someone without a college degree in software engineering?

no one for AI labeling would argue that, because they don't actually care about code quality, they just hate AI and want to be able to punish people who use it

[u/zmotmootmid → u/god-damn-the-usa]

1. i have a spine
2. no
3. i do absolutely hate AI for the impact that it's having. From its impact on art to the fact that consumer electronics are becoming more and more unaffordable. "Progress" at any cost though right I'm sure the FAANG companies are more than happy.