[IAmGraydon]

>AI-assisted coding is good for creators. It happens to be good for corporations because it reduces costs, but it's actually much more powerful for creators with imagination. I don't know where that argument comes from.

>If AI-assisted coding can help corporations make AAA games with 1/10th the resources, then it would stand to reason it also helps indies make AAA with 1/10th the resources? I have never understood this argument.

We're talking about banning AI coding in the game engine itself, not game creators banning the use of AI to create actual games on top of the platform.

[maiybe]

> adds to their brand as something for creators rather than corporations

I'm responding to the idea that banning AI contributions is on brand for being "for creators."

What about their action is creator friendly? Yes, they reject all low quality AI slop, which has some indirect positive benefit. They also won't accept high quality PRs unless they are hand crafted. How does that benefit creators? Most arguments it's "for creators" likely conflate the idea that AI-coding is inherently slop. If so, then we can say that directly instead of implicitly.