Okay, sure - maybe. But how does that weigh against any of the other concerns? So we consume large amounts of energy, build lots of new data, emit more pollution, concentrate even more wealth and power in the hands of a few companies, and ruin the job market. Is that really worth it so some people interested in games (but not interested enough to actually learn!) can “make” games by prompting an LLM?

That’s the piece that’s missing from this and other analyses. At least in other cases it makes a little sense in automating work. But game development is a creative endeavor, and the health of our planet and the lives of real people are at stake. Can’t you at least weigh the downsides against the benefits?

This feels like Jurassic Park: “Your scientists spent so much time asking if they could, they didn’t stop to ask if they should.” LLM supporters act like LLMs are inevitable and talk about the benefits, even when they’re relatively minimal. But serious discussion of the risks and downsides is missing. And it has been missing for years now.