After scanning through the video, the first 20 minutes is a guy doing coding with no AI involved. He's manually designing a level in a pre-made level editor. He's manually writing code in a pre-made IDE. He's not having AI code.

At the 20 minute mark, he decides to ask the AI a question. He wants it to figure out how to prevent a menu from showing when it shouldn't. It takes him 57 seconds to type/communicate this to the AI.

He then basically just sits there for over 60 seconds while the AI analyzes the relevant code and figures it out, slowly outputting progress along the way.

After a full two minutes into this "AI assistance" process, the AI finally tells him to just call a "canBuildAtCurrentPosition" method when a button is pressed, which is a method that already exists, to switch on whether the menu should be shown or not.

The AI also then tries to do something with running the game to test if that change works, even though in the context he provided he told it to never try to run it, so he has to forcefully stop the AI from continuing to spend more time running, and he has to edit a context file to be even more explicit about how the AI should not do that. He's frustrated, saying "how many times do I have to tell it to not do that".

So, his first use of AI in 20 minutes of coding, is an over two minute long process, for the AI to tell him to just call a method that already existed when a button is pressed. A single line change. A change which you could trivially do in < 5 seconds if you were just aware of what code existed in your project.

About what I expected.

Congratulations, you've managed to spot all the pain/weak points of the whole ~30 hour process without ever noticing all the good points. It takes a special type of skill to do so :).

> About what I expected.

But then again, you opened the video already with an expectation to see failure, so of course you found it.

One could find a 5-minute slice of any highly successful project I’ve worked on where my actions look foolish and my tools look broken.

Isolating your analysis of this to a single unflattering interaction is intellectually dishonest; you have a bone to pick.

[deleted]