If that were the case, I think we would have already seen a turbocharged AI fork of Godot by now.
Or, if the machine-generated programming is that good, it shouldn’t be prohibitively difficult to surpass the handwritten version.
Let's take a moment to put the AI psychosis down and think through your comment:
1. AI is so good that you can get your game working to your vision in a matter of weeks without needing to depend on godot
2. Godot is making a mistake refusing AI contributions
How exactly is godot making a mistake, if AI is so good that godot is defunct anyway?
>you could easily surpass godots feature set (for your game) in a week with Claude.
Are you a graphics programmer/ game engine developer by chance? Because I am, and this is one of the most insane statements I've ever heard.
In my day job, I work on a closed source 3D engine. It's certainly no Godot, yet our codebase is still over ~400k lines of code, and I would bet my entire lifes savings that a neophyte using Claude/Codex wouldn't be able to replicate our engine in a years time, let alone a week. Hell, I'm not sure an expert would be able to replicate our engines functionality in a year.
Point being: game engine development is possibly one of hardest niches in software, and nobody is going to vibe code a replacement for the largest open source game engine in a fucking week.