The value is obviously to the people who will use this to replace engineers.

I would happily pay $200 a month for this. Luckily I dont need to, it's free.

Literally every game and website that I would have had to pay someone else to make I can now make myself. There's no value in that?

A year ago the best free LLM couldn't even give me a basic gridmap and collision. Now it can give me a full RCT style prototype & editor in 20 iterations.

I can only imagine what improvements we will have NEXT year!

> luckily I don't have to. It's free.

Ponder that for a minute.

There are over 2 million games, for Android alone.

That you weren't making games before the advent of LLMs makes it cool for you to build, and at no cost. But people have been able to make games without them and already grew the market to saturation.

If the outcome of LLMs is that we get more games, it won't imply that people will consume more games. Most games never get played anyway.

There's nothing to "ponder" as you so patronizingly put it, and your stats on gaming are self-evident.

Op never said they're selling games. They said they're making their own games and websites for a fraction of the cost (even $0). That's amazing value. And it's just getting better.

that $0 is meant to go on the side of the value add that justifies the sort of funding we are seeing?

I didn't mean to patronize, sometimes self evidence isn't trivial to notice.

The funding is in anticipation of AI becoming so good that mistakes are only seen in the most complex output. In consumer applications, it's hard not to see that happening, given the exponential improvements of the past year. Whoever gets there first can capture the market.