I'm on AI Pro. Quality is obviously not on par with Codex/Claude, but I can't complain about quantity. It feels much closer to the usage limits we had before the big nerfs.
I've taken several stabs at it over the years but I always give up in exhaustion. It feels badly in need of an editor, not that anyone would dare. Maybe this is a consequence of the format: it was released serially in chapters to a literary periodical over the span of a couple years. It certainly would've been nice to trim away some of the side characters and ecclesiastical debates for a more focused read, but we got what we got.
I assume that the bitterness of the bitter lesson is not for engineers but for subject matter experts. I can only imagine how it would feel to discover that your decades of hard-earned expertise don't amount to a whole lot when it comes to domain-specific ML modeling, compared to simply throwing more compute at the problem.
Interesting. When I first got started with Unity I found really buggy behavior if you do any kind of physics calculations near world origin (0, 0, 0). It has a weird gravity well effect if you get too near it. I never found a satisfactory explanation for it but maybe this is it.
If you mean built-in Unity physics, then unlikely. All built-in physics stuff (either 3D physics which is PhysX, or 2D physics which is Box2D) are done entirely in C++ code and are unaffected by Mono float<->double shenanigans.
It was a prototype for a VR game in which you toss objects and I never drilled down far enough to see the implementation, since I just used the sample prefabs that come with the XR Interaction Toolkit. If you ever tossed anything in the vicinity of the origin, the object's trajectory would swerve towards it. Weirdly I couldn't reproduce the behavior when running the scene with a first-person controller in non-VR, so maybe a bug within that toolkit or something.
Within a meter or so, maybe a little more at times? But yeah I had an intuition that it was subnormal shenanigans, but didn't spend too long trying to diagnose, since it was easy enough to move everything a few meters offset.
If we're fair, this is one of the better examples. It looked reasonably useful until it got to the 'CI / GitHub Actions' section. Many readmes take a very long time to describe anything useful, like how to get started or even what exactly the software is.
Yeah I was expecting some giant text dump based on the complaints in the comments here, yet all I see is a pretty normal README? It's not even that large.
If we are splitting hairs some sections could have been left out or broken up into a dedicated doc, but this is still vastly better than a README that explains too little. At minimum I expect a README to give me guidance on what this is and how to get started with it and having stuff like a file layout helps with exactly that.
I recently tried to learn gamedev with Claude as a tutor of sorts. It didn't end well. Claude confidently led me off a cliff and I had throw the whole thing in the trash. It seems there's just no shortcut around learning stuff the hard way. When I've got enough reps in to be able to tell smart vs. stupid decisions, I imagine it'll be a lot more useful, but at this point I suspect AI is far from being good enough to get us into your described Dark Ages.
The conversation around AI in games is such a polluted mess of confusion and bad faith. I would hate to have to answer such an interview question.
Recently I came across a game on Steam that was getting review-bombed because the devs admitted to using AI on an entirely different game. By "using AI" I mean they admitted to using Cursor of all things. Not assets, just a coding assistant.
If we're going to get backlash for stuff as stupid as this, it's probably best to just keep one's entirely mouth shut about all things AI.
