Thankfully, most devs aren't the one making purchasing decisions in B2B. I haven't seen any change in the build vs buy equation for real businesses tbqh, and in B2B, those are the customers you want to target anyways, not the indie devs who think they can build Dropbox in a weekend. In B2C, I can definitely see this being true, but I have very little experience there so anything I say here is more on gut-feeling than anything else. But I have over 10 years of experience in B2B, and I've never seen businesses more eager to buy, to free teams up to work on the things they're experts at -- myself included.
I did this exact thing this year. I moved about >5 TB of event and log data into Clickhouse. I went from having to increase Postgres storage capacity every few months ($$$) to never thinking about it. Migrating to Clickhouse took me from constant timeouts on analytics queries to all queries returning in well under 100ms, and automated data retention using TTLs going from nightly pruning jobs that failed constantly (Postgres hates DELETEs on large tables) to again, never thinking about it. Because of this, I was able to increase retention per-account from a mere 30 days like I had -- just to keep performance and storage costs under control -- to much, much longer. Huge fan.
> Our philosophy through this transition is to bring existing projects along, not to force a hard break. Studios shipping on UE5 today should expect a manageable, and clear path forward when UE6 is ready for them. To allow for this, Actors and Blueprints will be in early versions of UE6. Eventually, these will be deprecated when the new framework is sufficiently mature, and you’ll have conversion tools to move projects from one framework to the other.
Very interesting to see them deprecating Blueprints. The proliferation of Blueprints is actually why I chose Unity DOTS over Unreal. I wanted to code (especially with LLMs), and from who I talked to, the industry seemed to use Blueprints more than code for gameplay scripting, which didn't appeal to me at all.
Maybe they're going for the "PR from Trademark Infringement" strat all the cool kids have been using recently, like Clawdbot and "Notepad plus plus for Mac".
Wow, I also wrote a game 8 years ago and have been using AI to rebuild upon it. I'm excited to tell people that I wrote it from scratch without AI! Love these new rules!
Out of 557 total commits in the repo, 510 have been done before the past 2 weeks. All those (minus 5 in 2023-2024) have been done on or before July 2022, months before ChatGPT had even launched.
Out of the 47 commits in the last 2 weeks, 26 were README updates / CI / docs. The remaining 21 commits are clearly cleanups, speedups, bugfixes, and tangential features like Blender import/export. Which leaves us with 505/557 commits (90%) if we're not generous --or 531/557 commits (95%) in the best case-- of non-AI commits to the repo.
OP clearly wrote most of the project by hand and has just been cleaning things up for public release the last couple weeks. Exactly as he disclosed in his comment.
It all boils down to what each of you individually understands as "made with AI", which could be anything between using autocompletions and braindead vibecode.
> If you ask it for a cute picture of you and somebody else it has no way of telling if you’re trying to improve your relations with your spouse or be a delusional creepazoid stalker. The chatbots which can make images are programmed to assume the latter, which is more than a little bit offensive.
I've seen the same behavior increasing as well, across the board with AI. I was hitting these types of issues just using ChatGPT to make funny pictures with my kids, of me and my kids. It got to the point where all of my kids asks were rejected due to its "guidelines" when in reality all they were asking was to be turned into Elsa or be chased by a trex. Silly kid things, yet it assumed I was being a creep, or attempting to break copyright law. I used to be able to use Grok for these things, as it was largely less "censored" but that seems to no longer be the case. It feels like infantilization, and I absolutely hate it.
That doesn't really make sense. If Amazon wanted to build hype, wouldn't they have talked publicly about this? What's the point of working hard on a hype strategy and then delivering it only in private to government officials?
The OpenAPI autogenerated clients kinda suck though.
My preferred approach for doing this is to have a hand-rolled SDK generator that reads the request, response and error models out of the microservice project and emits the same in each language targeted by the SDK, along with a minimal stub that calls the API.
You then spend 15 minutes at most, customizing the stub if needed, if you need custom behaviours like streaming.
Not talking about the generated clients, I'm talking about the spec itself. If the majority of API services don't even have an OpenAPI spec, they can't use tools like Stainless even if they wanted to. A lot is being left on the table by not working on that first issue: companies don't have an OpenAPI spec. Been on my mind to explore that issue, because I run one of those API services that don't have an OpenAPI spec, but I have other priorities pulling my attention away from that. I just wish it was all handled.
I generally recommend FastAPI, their OpenAPI generation isn’t always perfect if you have very polymorphic endpoints but it is really good compared to other tools I experienced. And is just a neat library that has been battle tested
reply