Re:Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
by Fraterkes on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @11:06AM
(#48748073)
Any resources for getting better at that skillset (high-velocity but largely stable ai-enhanced coding, if I understand you correctly)? I’m always pretty skeptical of these claims but I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong
Re:Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
by nemomarx on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @09:41AM
(#48746633)
but their stated reasoning is that they do open PRs to train up new contributors and eventually get them into the community where they'll be more trusted. That doesn't suggest a hardline stance against the tools to me necessarily at least.
Re:Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
by maiybe on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @09:54AM
(#48746846)
On one hand, you could be right! I am making inferences on low data, judging the Godot team based on some of their _strong_ design choices. I would have a better argument if I spent the time tracking the Github issues that seemed quite wild that we encountered while building in Godot. Top of mind (low evidence, sorry) GDScript as a base scripting language (later reversed by C#), refusal to add async/await for GDScript, others that have escaped me.
What I am saying is squishy conjecture.
On the other hand, they're training new contributors to make internal AI-assisted PRs by requiring them to make non-assisted PRs? That sounds unlikely but I suppose possible.
Re:Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
by overgard on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @01:41PM
(#48750526)
> Integrating AI-assisted PRs into an existing team is a skillset all in itself.
What exactly is this skillset? Why should AI created PR's be any different from other PRs?
To me this seems like a very sensible move.. they don't want to deal with bad code from uninvested contributors. I can't possibly see how that would harm them. If they want to use AI themselves, given their track record I trust they would do it tastefully.
Re:Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
by maiybe on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @02:08PM
(#48750936)
Quite simply, volume. Detailed human review is a serious bottleneck on code merging. Skillset includes how to make sure you can get quality code at speed without 100% in-depth human review. I wouldn't recommend merges without human eyes, but there is a spectrum of depth in review.
The team is taking a pretty strong stance against external AI-assisted PRs, which makes you think they'd take a weak stance against internal AI-assisted PRs? It's hard to draw the exact line, but maybe?
For our team, the outcome is the PR, and you have to set up _a lot of testing infrastructure_ to prevent regressions. It's a skillset like any other.
It would be consistent with their actions that my belief is they are slow to adopt workflows that will accelerate them. Thus velocity will decrease.