Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Saving the soul of an AI-assisted project means deciding which parts define it and keeping those parts under direct human control. In game developer Oscar Hedeby’s approach, the central game logic lives in an engine-agnostic /Game/ folder that AI does not touch; AI can still help with bounded auxiliary work, such as a leaf shader or rock generation, through an engine-facing view class. The aim is not to reject AI, but to use it without letting the project’s defining ideas become accidental by-products of implementation. Hedeby describes this as a personal design approach, not a proven formula for better projects.
What does “saving the soul” of an AI project mean?
“Soul” is a metaphor for the ideas and rules that make a project recognizably itself. In a game, that might be its central gameplay logic: what players can do, how the world responds, and what distinguishes the experience from a collection of assets and features. Hedeby’s essay, “Saving the soul of AI projects,” published on DEV Community on Oct. 11, 2026, argues that when AI takes on more implementation work, developers risk becoming less intimately familiar with the project and leaving defining concepts to chance.
His response is to draw a deliberate boundary. Keep the project’s defining logic human-owned, and delegate auxiliary tasks that can be specified, isolated, and reviewed. This is selective AI use, not a ban on using AI anywhere in the project. The practical question is not simply whether a task can be automated, but whether handing it over would also hand over a decision about what the project is.
That distinction matters because implementation and authorship can overlap. A seemingly small change can alter a core rule, while a visually complex task may be peripheral to the experience. A boundary based on project identity can therefore be more useful than a blanket rule such as “AI can write shaders” or “AI cannot write gameplay code.”
#1 Best Overall
- Read Before You Buy — No Video Output: These adapters support charging and USB 2.0 data transfer, but cannot transmit video signals. Except for standard USB webcams (which use USB data only), they are not compatible with HDMI/DisplayPort cables, video-capable USB-C hubs, or docking stations with video output.
- Convert USB-A Ports to USB-C: Designed to connect USB-C earphones, cables, flash drives, card readers, and other USB-C accessories to standard USB-A ports. Plug-and-play with no drivers or software required.
- Aluminum Alloy Housing: Built with a sturdy aluminum alloy shell that aids in heat dissipation and protects against daily wear and scratches. Designed to maintain a stable and secure connection.
- Compact & Travel-Friendly: The ultra-compact design allows the adapter to stay plugged into your device without blocking adjacent ports or adding bulk, reducing wear and tear on your original USB ports.
- 12-Month Warranty: Backed by a 12-month manufacturer warranty for peace of mind. Designed to meet strict quality control standards for reliable everyday performance.
How does Hedeby’s proposed project boundary work?
In Hedeby’s example, an engine-agnostic /Game/ folder holds the central game logic and acts as the project’s single source of truth. The game engine represents that core through a view class. AI can work on smaller auxiliary projects that connect to the core through that interface, rather than editing the core itself.
The example draws a line between the rules and ideas that define the game and supporting implementation. Hedeby identifies work such as optimizing a leaf shader or generating rocks as potential auxiliary tasks. Those examples are not a universal classification: a shader might be central to a distinctive visual mechanic, and generated rocks might affect gameplay if they change navigation or cover. The classification depends on what the work changes in this particular project.
| Question | Human-owned core in the example | Potential AI-assisted auxiliary work |
|---|---|---|
| What does it contain? | Central game logic in the engine-agnostic /Game/ folder |
Bounded supporting tasks, such as a leaf shader or rock generation |
| What role does it play? | It is the game’s single source of truth | It connects to or supports the core through an interface |
| What is the intended boundary? | “NO AI ALLOWED,” as Hedeby puts it | AI may handle work outside the protected core |
| What is the author’s stated tradeoff? | More direct human involvement in defining the game | Less speed than letting models work freely across the project |
The table describes Hedeby’s proposal, not a benchmark or an established best practice. The core folder and view class are features of his example; another project could implement a similar ownership boundary in a different architecture.
Rank #2
- 5-in-1 USB-C Hub: Experience comprehensive connectivity featuring a Power Delivery input, two USB-A 2.0 ports, a USB-A 3.0 port, and an HDMI port. (Note: The USB-C power delivery input port is only for connecting an external wall charger to power your laptop and cannot power peripheral devices.)
- 90W Pass-Through Charging: Achieve optimal charging with 90W pass-through power to your laptop, supported by a total input of 100W, with the hub reserving 10W for operational efficiency. (Note: Wall charger not included.)
- Quick Data Transfers: Accelerate your productivity with rapid data transfers using a high-speed 5Gbps USB 3.0 port and two 480Mbps USB 2.0 ports.
- 4K HDMI Display: Enhance your visual experience with a hub capable of delivering 4K resolution at 30Hz in both mirror and extend modes. Please note that this hub is compatible with MacBook (macOS 12 and newer), Windows 10 and 11, ChromeOS, and laptops equipped with DP Alt Mode and Power Delivery. Note: This device is not compatible with Linux.
- What You Get: Anker USB-C Hub (5-in-1, 4K HDMI), welcome guide, 18-month warranty, and our friendly customer service.
How can you decide what AI should never touch?
Start by naming the decisions that give the project its identity, then ask whether a task can be separated from those decisions. The following questions translate Hedeby’s example into a practical review framework; they are reasoned guidance, not tested scoring criteria.
- Would changing this alter the project’s identity? If the change affects a defining mechanic, rule, or creative direction, keep the decision human-owned. A task’s size is not a reliable measure of its importance.
- Can the task be isolated behind a stable boundary? A bounded task with a clear interface is easier to delegate than work that can reach into core logic. Hedeby’s engine-facing view class illustrates this kind of separation.
- Can you describe and check the result? Before delegating, define what the work must do and what counts as an acceptable result. If you cannot evaluate the output, you may be delegating the decision as well as the implementation.
- How much review and integration will it require? A task that appears small may still require substantial checking or changes elsewhere. Include that work when weighing any speed benefit.
- What authorship tradeoff are you willing to make? AI may take on more work when speed matters more than direct involvement in an auxiliary area; core creative choices may warrant the opposite priority.
A useful starting point is a short “human-owned” note for the project: the rules, decisions, or files that define the experience and must not be delegated. Pair it with a separate description of work that may be delegated and the limits those tasks must respect. This is an implementation suggestion for applying the boundary idea, not a process Hedeby says he tested.
How should you delegate work without handing over the project’s direction?
Make the boundary concrete before assigning a task. A broad instruction such as “improve the game” makes it difficult to tell whether an output stayed within scope; a small, reviewable request gives you a better chance to preserve the core while still getting useful help.
Rank #3
- Sleek 7-in-1 USB-C Hub: Features an HDMI port, two USB-A 3.0 ports, and a USB-C data port, each providing 5Gbps transfer speeds. It also includes a USB-C PD input port for charging up to 100W and dual SD and TF card slots, all in a compact design.
- Flawless 4K@60Hz Video with HDMI: Delivers exceptional clarity and smoothness with its 4K@60Hz HDMI port, making it ideal for high-definition presentations and entertainment. (Note: Only the HDMI port supports video projection; the USB-C port is for data transfer only.)
- Double Up on Efficiency: The two USB-A 3.0 ports and a USB-C port support a fast 5Gbps data rate, significantly boosting your transfer speeds and improving productivity.
- Fast and Reliable 85W Charging: Offers high-capacity, speedy charging for laptops up to 85W, so you spend less time tethered to an outlet and more time being productive.
- What You Get: Anker USB-C Hub (7-in-1), welcome guide, 18-month warranty, and our friendly customer service.
- Describe the protected core. Identify the game rules or defining decisions that the task must not change. In Hedeby’s example, the
/Game/folder is explicitly off limits to AI. - Specify the auxiliary task. Say what work is wanted, such as optimizing a particular leaf shader or generating rocks. Those are examples from Hedeby’s essay, not recommendations for every project.
- State the interface and limits. Explain how the work connects to the core, using the project’s actual boundary where one exists. Hedeby describes an engine-facing view class as the way the engine represents the engine-agnostic core.
- Review the result against the original scope. Check both whether the requested auxiliary work is acceptable and whether it has crossed into protected decisions. Treat review as part of the task, not as optional cleanup.
- Integrate deliberately. Keep responsibility for deciding whether and how the output joins the project. If integration reveals that the task affects core behavior, pause and make that decision yourself rather than allowing the boundary to blur by default.
This procedure is a practical interpretation of the essay’s core-versus-auxiliary distinction. Hedeby’s account does not specify a particular tool, prompt format, review checklist, or integration system, so teams should adapt these steps to their own project rather than treat them as his prescribed workflow.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsWhat are the tradeoffs of keeping a human-owned core?
The most explicit cost in Hedeby’s account is speed: he says his constrained approach is slower than letting models run freely. He also says it leaves him more room to imagine the game while an agent handles auxiliary tasks. That benefit is his personal assessment, not a measured outcome or evidence that the approach improves results generally.
For a project team, the likely practical tradeoff is between broad delegation and direct involvement in defining work. A protected core can make ownership clearer, but it also requires someone to set the boundary, judge outputs, and make integration decisions. A boundary that is too narrow may keep useful assistance away from work that could safely be delegated; one that is too loose may let important decisions pass without deliberate human authorship. These are implications of the design approach, not findings from a comparative study.
Rank #4
- Dual Converters, Infinite Potential：Includes 2× USB C male to USB A female adapters and 2× USB A male to USB C female adapters. Perfect for a wide range of uses—tablets with Bluetooth keyboards, expand USB ports on macbook, and more. Two different converters for all your daily needs
- Next-Level 10Gbps & 3A Charging: No more slow 480Mbps, this usb to usb c adapter has a transfer speed of up to 10Gbps, allowing you to do more transferring in less time. This usb adapter fits both USB A and USB C charger, supporting up to 3A fast charging
- Upgraded Exquisite Craftsmanship: With an aluminum alloy housing and metal connector, the usbc to usb adapter is extremely durable and sturdy. Rigorously tested to withstand more than 10,000 times of plugging and unplugging, ensuring long-lasting performance
- Broad Compatible: The usb c to usb adapter widely supports all USB C/ USB A devices like laptops, tablets, cellphones, car chargers, and phone chargers. Such as compatible with MacBook Pro/Air 2023/2022, Thunderbolt 4/3 Devices,Apple MagSafe Watch 9/8/7/SE/Ultra, iPad Pro 2022/2021, Samsung Galaxy S23/S20/S10, and iPhone 17/16/15 Pro. Plug and play
- Please Note: To reach 10Gbps speed, keep the cable under 3.3 ft. For USB A Male to USB C adapters, try flipping the USB C connector. USB C Male to USB A adapters support bidirectional 10Gbps transfer within 3.3 ft
There is no universal amount of AI assistance that preserves a project’s identity. The useful choice depends on which work is distinctive, how cleanly it can be separated, and how much time the team is willing to trade for direct control. Hedeby frames his own choice in terms of how much a feature touches “the soul of the project” versus its auxiliary parts.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What does this approach establish—and what does it not?
Hedeby’s essay is a first-person account of an approach he is using on a video game project. It supports a clear description of his design proposal and his stated tradeoff, but it does not establish that the architecture is best for other games, that it prevents developers from losing familiarity, or that it produces better products. No independent comparative evidence is identified for those broader claims.
Recommended Free Tools
That limitation does not make the idea useless. It means readers should treat the boundary as a design choice to evaluate against their own work, not as a guaranteed safeguard. A team can try the distinction—human-owned defining logic, delegated auxiliary tasks—and decide whether it improves clarity and preserves the involvement it values. The essay does not provide a quantified measure of success, so claims about results should remain grounded in the team’s own observations.
Best Value
- 5-in-1 Connectivity: Equipped with a 4K HDMI port, a 5 Gbps USB-C data port, two 5 Gbps USB-A ports, and a USB C 100W PD-IN port. Note: The USB C 100W PD-IN port supports only charging and does not support data transfer devices such as headphones or speakers.
- Powerful Pass-Through Charging: Supports up to 85W pass-through charging so you can power up your laptop while you use the hub. Note: Pass-through charging requires a charger (not included). Note: To achieve full power for iPad, we recommend using a 45W wall charger.
- Transfer Files in Seconds: Move files to and from your laptop at speeds of up to 5 Gbps via the USB-C and USB-A data ports. Note: The USB C 5Gbps Data port does not support video output.
- HD Display: Connect to the HDMI port to stream or mirror content to an external monitor in resolutions of up to 4K@30Hz. Note: The USB-C ports do not support video output.
- What You Get: Anker 332 USB-C Hub (5-in-1), welcome guide, our worry-free 18-month warranty, and friendly customer service.
The central idea is narrower and more actionable than a claim that AI is inherently harmful: if a project’s defining choices matter to you, identify them before delegating implementation. Then give AI bounded work whose connection to those choices can be understood and reviewed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who wrote “Saving the soul of AI projects”?
The essay was written by Oscar Hedeby and published on DEV Community on Oct. 11, 2026. It presents his experience and proposal for a video game project.
Does the article argue that developers should stop using AI?
No. Its proposal is selective delegation: preserve human ownership of defining game logic while allowing AI to help with auxiliary work. It does not set out a general prohibition on AI.
Is an engine-agnostic game architecture required to use this idea?
No such requirement is established. The engine-agnostic /Game/ folder and view class are Hedeby’s example of a boundary, not a verified prerequisite for applying the broader distinction.
Does keeping AI out of core code prove a game will be better?
No. The essay is an individual account, and it does not report comparative evidence demonstrating better outcomes. It describes a way to prioritize authorship and control, with a speed cost the author acknowledges.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
