[with]

the real takeaway is buried at the bottom: "the magic isn't in the input, it's in the system around it." random keystrokes producing playable games means the input barely matters anymore. we're basically at the point where the engineering is in the scaffolding, not the prompting.

[avaer]

> we're basically at the point where the engineering is in the scaffolding, not the prompting.

This still required prompting, and not from the dog. Engineering is still the holistic practice of engineering.

[cardanome]

That also shows the delusion of some people that believe their vibe coded projects have any value.

If generative AI improves at the rate that is promised then all your "promting skills" or whatever you believe you had will be obsolete. You might think you will be an "AI engineer" or whatever and that it is other people that will lose their job, that you are safe because you have the magic skills to use the new tech. You believe the tech overlords will reward you for your faith.

Nope. You are just training your replacement.

No one will buy your game that you vibe coded. If the tech were good enough to create games that are actually fun then they would just generate their own games. Oh your skill? Yeah, a dog can do it.

Yes people will cope by saying but oh the whole initial prompt and setting it all up was still hard but yeah currently. The tech will improve and it will get more accessible. So enjoy the few months you are still relevant.

Of course there is reason to believe that you can't scale up LLMs endlessly and bigger models hit diminishing returns. In fact we might already be seeing this. So there is an upside but then again when the AI bubble pops and the economy crashes you will be out of a job all the same.

[mikkupikku]

Sounds great to me. Software devs might lose their jobs but billions of people will be empowered to spin up whatever software they need on demand. This is the future I dreamed of when I was a kid, and I'm not so cynical as to let the dying of a trade sour me to this objectively incredible technology.

[ajspig1]

+ Also the fact that the Memory.md file was a hindrance to the quality of output

[cezart]

Depends on the desired output. The author wanted variability, for which Memory.md was an obstacle. Another project might need consistency.

[otabdeveloper4]

> the engineering is in the scaffolding, not the prompting

Well, yes. Feeding random tokens as prompts until something good comes out is a valid strategy.

[yoyohello13]

Simulated annealing for game design

[cardanome]

Not that I condone any form of gambling but I would rather play actual slot machines instead of spending hundreds of dollars on tokens in hopes that the AI blesses me with anything useful.

[wazHFsRy]

I think this misses something. The output here is something not the thing. Yes the scaffolding is important, but the requirements are even more important. You need crystal clear requirements + great scaffolding and then the implementation becomes mechanical.

[krupan]

This is amazing because it's the same logic and argument about how to do good software engineering that's been around for 40 years. If you just write good enough requirements, a good enough, detailed specification, then your software team can't fail, even if they are low-cost engineers from a developing nation. It's the classic Waterfall method.

That was totally upended by agile, that emphasized that yes, a clear, unambiguous specification is needed, and the best language for that is a programming language. Don't waste time writing a detailed spec in English, get right to writing it in code that you can execute and get immediate feedback on.

Now people want LLMs to write the code for them, so they are back to saying we just need to give the LLMs clear enough direction, a clear specification. It's amazing to witness history not exactly repeat itself, but very clearly rhyming

[azeirah]

Sorry but what do you mean crystal clear requirements?

I don't particularly think "y7u8888888ftrg34BC" would pass as a crystal clear requirement at my workplace :<

Do you mean something different?

[testaccount28]

this would be a more insightful comment if the output wasn't itch io shovelware.

[randomtoast]

> the magic isn't in the input, it's in the system around it.

It isn't [this], it's [that]. Is AI slop, just saying.

[jascha_eng]

> the "intelligence" was never in the input It's quite literally in the authors prompt so in the input. it's in the article that without his prompt the gibberish input produces nothing of value:

"Hello! I am an eccentric video game designer (a very creative one) who communicates in an unusual way. Sometimes I’ll mash the keyboard or type nonsense like “skfjhsd#$%” – but these are NOT random! They are secret cryptic commands full of genius game ideas (even if it’s hard to see).

Your job: You are a brilliant AI game developer who can understand my cryptic language. No matter what odd or nonsensical input I provide, you will interpret it as a meaningful instruction or idea for our video game. You will then build or update the game based on that interpretation."

Also I don't know if you're an LLM or not but can we please not chatGPT-ify our comments like this? It figuratively makes me want to punch you through the screen.