Can't speak to that one, but Studio Copilot.net Ultimate Home Professional Visual Edition 365# Server 95 was one of the best pieces of software I've ever used.
The people who hand write code for a game engine will beat the people who try to vibe code a game engine.
But they'll both be beaten by people using AI intelligently to generate code, but not letting it drive everything. Who look at every line and apply their experience to fixing what the AI generates until it outputs more or less what you would have, only more quickly.
The false dichotomy that some of you are trying to push between "just taking whatever the AI slops out" and "pristine hand-crafted code by dedicated, loving experts" doesn't exist.
I'd put my estimates at 3x speed improvements. The amount of infra required upfront? 5x one time cost. These are estimates from Godot mobile app work. We have been trying out: no reviews under specific file sizes, except at design bottlenecks or large refactors. Number of PRs is probably up 3x with maybe 20% increase in regressions? Number of tests in our CI is up 500% (again, approximate), but this is absolutely required or we'd be awash in uncaught regressions with the velocity of code changes.
We have PR auditing skills, PR writing skills, testing conventions, etc that all need to be self-monitored for bullsh*t Claude ignorance (e.g. you apply them many times, then review your own PRs manually before merge). None of that is free, but we have shipped significantly more code as a result.
Hearing about a Godot mobile app is hilarious to me. If there was ever a signal that Godot is not a serious tool to create releasable games, but rather a toy for beginners to mess around with, spending a bunch of resources on porting the engine to phones is it. Wowza
Seeing what y'all write in the child comments here, I think there is a massive misconception. Games made with Godot can be deployed to mobile fairly easily. The recent "breakthrough" about Godot working on Android was about making the Godot editor (which itself is made with Godot) fully work on Android in the sense that it can actually build project there which is more about getting build tooling to work on an Android device than actually running the Godot engine on Android. Totally different things. For quite some time you can quite easily deploy your Godot game to mobile, it's not a real problem.
I am struggling to understand the exact content of your message. I believe it's that Godot is unserious. Okay? Game engines serve a niche much smaller than broad consumer apps or SaaS platforms. Seems like a dunk I don't quite understand.
It's a game built in Godot that runs on mobile (a mobile game). Godot is C++, there is no porting of engine to run on mobile? Slay the Spire 2 is built in Godot and has 500k concurrent users.
I interpreted your comment "Godot mobile app work" to mean you worked on porting Godot itself to mobile, which I then checked and found that it did actually happen https://godotengine.org/article/gabe-stable-release/
If Godot for Android is unrelated to you then I misread. But I still find it hilarious conceptually, unrelated to you, that Godot is spending resources on porting itself to phones while it has so many serious outstanding issues. As though game devs are going to be coding on their phones in any meaningful way.
An important compilation target for Godot is mobile, since it's obviously a very large games market.
And, since the Godot IDE is, itself, an app written in Godot, porting to mobile is almost free. More a question of tweaking than rewriting. That's the same reason there's a version of Godot runnable in a browser... it's a consequence of Godot allowing webapps as build targets.
How does this square with the blog post I linked, that sounds like a lot of work, and its ending blurb, "It’s been a long road to bring full build support to the Godot editor on Android and XR devices, and we are excited to see what you build entirely on device!"?
A long road does not sound like something almost free
Thank you for clarifying! That totally changed my interpretation.
There is a surprising number of projects dedicated to making Godot work on mobile, and I am equally confused by that focus. I guess it's more possible with AI coding though, but couch game dev doesn't feel like a real thing.
By all accounts, with the current curve of model improvement, I don't see strong evidence that aligns with that belief. Perhaps with a plateau in model improvement or a saturation of the tech (a la iPhone 2020s), one could argue the lack of growth. But right now with evidence at hand? I wouldn't take that bet.
They can think and reason better than most humans. Most problems they're pointed at are not in their training set, but in certain ways they resemble things that are—maybe there are a few different resemblances to different problems in its training set—so it's able to pull these disparate similarities together and apply the patterns it finds to come up with a solution. Much like human brains do.
What? This is a massive misunderstanding. It’s easy to get truly novel ideas from LLMs, unless your definition of “new things” is so strict that no human can do so either.
The training set is about patterns, not facts or specific configurations. Yes, it’s possible to extract (some) of the training set verbatim, but that doesn’t mean it’s all you can do.
>unless your definition of “new things” is so strict that no human can do so either.
Humans rarely think of new things. We're a weak hivemind species. One or two individuals figure something out, and the rest of the troop of monkeys imitates. Brains are too fuel hungry for every brain to be innovating, "innovate and copy to the other brains" is the norm.
It does not think at all. It vibes based on its training and any additional bolted on constraints. It is a quite simple automation that only works by huge amount of existing data.
Modern man has grown quite dumb. He only seems to be able to "invent" by massive scaling things that are decades or centuries old..
Electricity runs from simple batteries (600 BCE) to today’s power grids.
RF was predicted but not demonstrated by Maxwell in the 1860’s. His work built on Faraday’s (1840’s) and Coulomb’s (1780’s). Coulomb built on Franklin and Newton, among others. Or do you mean Marconi and Tesla, who merely implemented what Maxwell predicted?
The same is true for lasers and transistors but it’s tedious. There was no single “back in the day people invented things from whole cloth” moment.
I would put it differently. Those inventions came from humans interacting with the physical world.
When LLMs were first introduced, they didn't have much of a feedback loop. They wrote code, but they couldn't compile it. Not surprisingly, the code had bugs.
Now, they run with harnesses that allow them to compile the code, and react to the issues they observe. They can fix their own bugs and solve problems that they create, just like humans.
Give an agent access to the physical world, and it seems highly likely that they will be able to "invent" things based on feedback they receive while working towards goals.
Of course, there are some well-known limitations of LLMs, one of the biggest being that they're pretrained. So there may be some things where they're not as good. Just like how some humans aren't as good at certain tasks, depending on their genetics and/or how they've been trained.
> it seems highly likely that they will be able to "invent" things based on feedback they receive while working towards goals...
I don't think so. Imagine a model trained on data from an Internet that believes in hypothesis that earth is the center of the world. Even if you feed all the physical data, I don't think it can come up with the idea that all of its training data was wrong.
This might be also a good argument for why this LLMs are not "intelligent". You can feed contradicting training data all day and it will accept it without bating an eye. But that won't work with an entity that is truly intelligent.
Those are not merely scaling. I can get “build upon other works”, but there’s a lot of scientific insights needed for observing and modeling a phenomena. It may even requires a boost of creativity to theorize an effect based on that model and then make it possible in an experiment.
In what way is electricity an invention? Electricity is a physical phenomenon. Various machines for doing work with electrical energy, storing electrical energy, converting other types of energy to electrical energy, etc. are certainly inventions... Heck, rubbing an amber rod with a fur is an invention. The static charge transferred is not.
Invention, discovery..does not matter. There was a point in time when humanity was oblivious to the phenomenon and then there was a point when we were not and we could generate and use it.
It is false to claim that there was a moment when electricity went from unknown and opaque to understood and producible. That “moment” was thousands of years and all incremental.
Individual brilliance has always been rare. If I booted your ass back 1000 years you'd have seen the same shade of grey in the pig farmers and peasants along with most of the nobles and kings. It turns out that in general the world is a shade of grey.
Hell, looking back at the brilliant individuals, they had many, many grey areas.
I was pointing out two things: first, your understanding of LLM capabilities is very outdated; and second, that in this respect, you're behaving much like an LLM with a training cutoff.
That further touches on the idea that the differences between you and an LLM may not be as large as you imagine. In particular, "cobbling something together if it's in their training set" is pretty much what all humans do.
I remember when they first announced it years ago and they pretended to care by walking back the change. As always, the strategy is to wait for the dust to settle and then push the changes again.
I would love to know how much of their internal workflows are being handled by AI workflows. Because this seems like the kind of thing your agent might do.
https://teybannerman.com/strategy/2026/03/31/how-many-micros...
reply