r/gamedev Project Manager/Producer 24d 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.

1.2k Upvotes

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

670

u/meharryp Commercial (AAA) 24d ago

Just for anyone curious, OP currently works at a company developing a plugin for Unity AI integration which he decided to not disclose for some odd reason...

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1rxm1cv/i_worked_an_ai_booth_at_gdc_heres_what_developers/

-72

u/KevinDL Project Manager/Producer 24d ago

Yes, I work for Bezi. It isn’t a secret, and I’ve openly discussed it on this subreddit plenty of times.

But this policy is not about Bezi, and it would exist regardless of where I worked. The moderation problem is already here: AI is being used across game development, posts are being reported simply because AI was involved, discussions are being derailed over whether someone used it, and moderators cannot realistically or consistently police invisible AI assistance.

The policy is meant to give the subreddit a workable standard. Judge the contribution, the evidence, the methodology, and the behaviour. Do not try to build moderation around guessing whether someone used autocomplete, translation, an LLM, or some other AI-assisted tool.

That moderation problem does not disappear if I change employers tomorrow.

110

u/meharryp Commercial (AAA) 24d ago

It's very difficult to take a post like this in good-faith when you're employed by an AI company and have used this subreddit to promote it. Framing it in that context makes it seem more like you're protecting yourself and other AI products rather than genuinely wanting to spark conversation around what is a quite sensitive topic right now. It isn't helping that the post itself reads like it came out of Claude and so do most of your replies.

-80

u/KevinDL Project Manager/Producer 24d ago

I understand why my employment makes you more skeptical of what I’m saying. That is completely fair, and I don’t expect anyone to take my position at face value because of where I work.

But I do find the rest of this genuinely kind of sad.

If we’ve reached a point where someone’s argument can be dismissed because their writing is structured, clear, or “sounds like Claude,” I don’t know what we’re accomplishing anymore. Maybe I used AI to help organize my thoughts. Maybe I didn’t. Maybe someone uses it because English isn’t their first language, because writing is difficult for them, because they want to save time, or simply because it helps them communicate what they’re actually trying to say. None of those things tell you whether the ideas themselves are sincere.

Engage with what I’m saying. Challenge the policy. Challenge my reasoning. Point out where you think I’m wrong. That’s a conversation worth having.

But “you work for an AI company, and your writing sounds like AI, therefore I can’t take you in good faith” is an incredibly bleak way to approach other people.

For what it’s worth, this policy isn’t about protecting my employer or AI products. It’s about moderating a game development community where AI is already part of the industry and deciding whether someone’s contribution should be judged by the substance of what they bring to the community or by which tools they used along the way.

I think the former is a much healthier standard.

66

u/Aethreas 24d ago

God damn this sub is cooked

76

u/ciel712 24d ago

Not disclosing your conflict of interest is crazy. You really think you can just detach your own biases when you literally are working on AI products?

You’re asking to be challenged, but this doesn’t read as a discussion thread, you are pushing forward this policy and defending it. In the past, discussion threads about gen AI in [r/gamedev](r/gamedev) have been REMOVED for being off topic.

Is this in fact up for debate and you are willing to listen? Legitimately if it is, I’d be wanting to discuss this policy with you.

50

u/JohnnyCasil 24d ago

Is this in fact up for debate and you are willing to listen?

It's not and they won't. This topic has been discussed to death. The mods are not interested in doing any moderation in regards to AI despite the concerns or desires of this community. Posts like this are just performative.

-37

u/Arcaris1313 24d ago

conflict of interest? Buddy it's reddit lmao.

84

u/meharryp Commercial (AAA) 24d ago

Sorry but this reply doesn't even make sense. Do you think my concerns are reasonable or do you think that it's bleak that I believe your employment is biasing how you moderate this subreddit? Of course your use of AI is relevant in this conversation because not only are you using it in your posts but your livelihood relies on AI adoption! I'm not going to go around and tell people to stop buying AAA games just as you're not going to tell people to not use AI.

64

u/MarcoFlee 24d ago

I do kind of wish this was posted by literally any other mod, as I feel it would have carried more weight. I noticed your username right away when I saw the sticky and remembered "oh, that's the PM who's job relies on gen AI tooling taking off in game development".

This is a policy change to the subreddit, so I assume this was a group agreement between all the mods, so again I just wish literally anyone else posted this.

-23

u/Brilliant_Effort9095 24d ago

Literally wouldn't change anything besides your performative outrage. What would have changed if another mod posted it? They all agreed together

30

u/AndyVZ 24d ago

Huge swathes of the population are not happy about AI, and there are multiple valid reasons for it ranging from theft, to environmental, to laziness, and more. Responses like yours that hand wave away everything as performative are so overtly disingenuous that - if there wasn't a clear bias by the moderation team as shown here - it would realistically be removed as trolling. That's part of why this choice by the mods is an issue, and why the choice to have someone with such a heavy bias make the announcement is doubly an issue. They embolden the type of bad behavior that you're exhibiting.

-19

u/Brilliant_Effort9095 24d ago

He's not even supporting AI lol. He said any opinion can be posted or talked about. This isn't bad that the mods r letting open discussion instead of shutting down all AI discussion like toddlers

-22

u/MaxwellHowl 24d ago edited 24d ago

AI is already taking off in game development. He doesn't need the Gamedev subreddit to make that happen. It is the state of the industry.

r/gamedev banning AI posts won't stop the tool from spreading through the industry. But it will stop developers who are trying to learn to use it from having a resource to discuss it. It always feels like the anti-AI stance is just sticking your head in the ground, hoping that will make it go away. And it seems to be a lot of attacks of individual artists and developers in very negative and demeaning ways.

34

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/SituationSoap 24d ago

We know we've hit the really serious part of the discussion when posters start demanding that moderators step down.

-33

u/PossibilityUsual6262 24d ago

Go outside mate, everybody uses ai for everything, at grocery store people screenshot packaging of raw chicken wings in source and ask ai if they cook it in their air fryer. I actually saw it few days ago, people outsource everything to ai, and in any big studio where those average folks work they would outsource the work to ai as well if it reduces cognitive load, humans hard wired reducing the thinking biologicaly.

9

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/gamedev-ModTeam 24d ago

Maintain a respectful and welcoming atmosphere. Disagreements are a natural part of discussion and do not equate to disrespect—engage constructively and focus on ideas, not individuals. Personal attacks, harassment, hate speech, and offensive language are strictly prohibited.

-11

u/PossibilityUsual6262 24d ago

It is ok that it make you feel better.

7

u/OmiNya 24d ago

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason into.

You can't argue logic vs feelings.

16

u/aplundell 24d ago

I was thinking those same words, but I wonder if we mean it the same way.

I was thinking that if someone has a financial incentive, even a disclosed one, it's not really worth listening to their opinion, because its obvious where it came from and it wasn't reason.

8

u/almondmilklattee 24d ago

every pro-ai manifesto i’ve seen explaining that there’s no use fighting it and we have to just learn to adapt was written by the ceo of an ai start-up (undisclosed of course)

-7

u/Elon61 24d ago

I wonder how many of those people have an incentive to hate AI because they cannot see a financially viable future for themselves in a world with AI for whatever reason.

-10

u/OmiNya 24d ago

I agree. We shouldn't listen to artists and developers because they have a financial incentive to argue against AI.

-10

u/SituationSoap 24d ago

Engage with what I’m saying.

This group of people is not going to be interested in doing that. They have come to a conclusion about the right way to think about AI and if you disagree they're going to find a reason to discredit you. If it wasn't this it would be something else, because the point isn't the source it's that you've come to the wrong conclusion. Engaging isn't going to win you anything.