Sound, vision, gaming, VR, tech, occasional nonsense. Product Lead at BBC, former games dev (Silver, Wipeout Pure, Wipeout HD and more)

Manchester
Joined February 2009
I feel like judging someone on 6 parameters when all they did was take a parcel out of the back of a van and put it on the doorstep is overkill. Why not just choose from: 1. Package damaged. 2. Wrong house. 3. GREAT!
1
1
78
Matthew Brooks retweeted
A provocation: if this GLSL shader was one shoted with a skills.md that requests to impersonate me, and indeed does pull my work on shapes, lighting, animation and delivers my style, maths, techniques and conventions (to the variable name)... isn't this actually, MY brain's work? Should I claim it as mine? Claude only did the mechanical/easy part of immitating my usual moves to put this together.
Video 2 GLSL I gave Claude Opus 5.5 a 20-second video clip. It rebuilt the whole thing as one GLSL fragment shader: 156 KB of code, no textures, no video frames. Just math, looping seamlessly
100
74
11
1,406
65,927
Matthew Brooks retweeted
We have had democratising game development tools for a while now. Unity, Unreal, to name but two. And while it is possible for the inexperienced to 'make a game' the quality bar between their output and the output of an experienced team is huge. Asking an agent to 'make a game' and see something functional be produced is quite the parlour trick, but don't confuse that with what a capable and experienced team will be able to produce using agents. The quality difference will be enormous. Tim Sweeney is completely correct. Agents help solve one of the biggest problem which has plagued game development for well over a decade... complexity. Strap in, because game development is being turbo charged.
9
11
3
190
7,686
Matthew Brooks retweeted
Intoxicating. I’ve been programming for 45 years, since so was 10. I’ve been a pro game coder for 33 years. Everything from hand coded assembly to UE 5.8. The paradigm shift to agentic coding is intoxicating. It is the biggest productivity jump I have ever experienced.
280
530
99
11,262
1,084,800
Matthew Brooks retweeted
At least if a channel outright removes a show you can have a clearly defined debate over why, however much you disagree. There's something sinister about this ongoing retrospective moral pruning. Especially when the sketches were literally satirising the thought processes behind racism.
81
250
7
2,774
191,843
I'm looking forward to taking part in this. 'Fanshawe’s event, Conflict on Campus, which is open to the public, will take place at the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh on October 21. Speakers will include Professor Michael Spence, the president and provost of University College London, Professor Jo Phoenix of Reading University, who took the Open University to a tribunal which found that it had discriminated against her because of her gender-critical views, and Dr Tommy Curry, professor of Africana philosophy and black male studies at the University of Edinburgh. “We have deliberately gone for a wide range of views, from free-speech absolutists to those who say that it is not acceptable to say things that are perceived to disadvantage or offend other people,” Fanshawe said. “All points of view will be heard, and debated, and that’s exactly as it should be.”' @SimonFanshawe @JoPhoenix1 @MShipworth @akuareindorf [registration in next tweet] thetimes.com/uk/scotland/art…
3
37
2
86
15,491
Matthew Brooks retweeted
Wow…Roland Fryer and @BillAckman have created a $1 million prize for academic truth-telling, the Carob Trust Prize for Academic Courage. “The prize awards $1 million each to as many as five social scientists a year who have demonstrated intellectual independence, published findings that were attacked rather than answered, and been validated by the evidence—despite the professional cost. The selection criteria are designed to distinguish courage from contrarianism: Nominees must show a sustained commitment to following logic and evidence regardless of pressure, a willingness to ask questions others avoid, and work that has shifted academic debate, public discourse or policy—often despite being misread, mischaracterized or vilified at the time of publication.”
154
777
158
4,427
383,228
Matthew Brooks retweeted
I think this is (very) wrong, but I still love Bjarne. See how that works? You can disagree with someone, and still manage to enjoy their work (I built 3 apps for Omarchy Quattro in C++ and never looked at a line of the code! 😂).
The creator of the C++ programming language, Bjarne Stroustrup, says AI-generated code is not successful and calls the idea of using natural language as a programming language idiotic. He says humans will still write code and use abstraction. According to him, AI generates bloated code with more bugs and security holes, making it hard to validate. He also says the senior developers needed to validate it are starting to retire because they don’t want to deal with validating something that changes every time you change your prompt. He goes on to say that AI is not good at writing safety-critical or performance-critical code: “Now, let’s say that 70 or 80% of the world’s code doesn’t fit that pattern, but it’s that 10, 20% of the code that I’m interested in.”
180
62
18
2,431
220,734
Writing and CS skills affect vibe coding outcomes? Noooo… really?!
China published the most uncomfortable paper on vibe coding. ETH Zurich tested 100 developers in a controlled, commercial-grade vibe coding environment to see who actually succeeds. The findings are brutal. The researchers tracked computer science achievement, written communication skills, and general cognitive reasoning. They wanted to see what actually predicts vibe coding proficiency when you never touch a line of source code yourself. Two major predictors emerged. Written communication proficiency mattered. The ability to structure thoughts and articulate intent unambiguously in text directly impacts what the AI builds. But that wasn't even the main takeaway. Computer science achievement was a massive, dominant predictor of success. Even when researchers controlled for general intelligence and reasoning skills, CS background still heavily dictated who built working software and who completely crashed. In fact, CS knowledge contributed roughly twice the unique predictive variance of writing skills alone. Why? Because vibe coding isn't about writing code. It’s about debugging logic. When an AI agent builds a complex application and quietly breaks an edge case under the hood, a non-technical user looks at the glowing UI and assumes it works. They don't know what questions to ask. They don't know what logic to challenge. They lack the mental models to recognize architectural catastrophe. You can prompt your way past syntax. You cannot prompt your way past a fundamental lack of engineering intuition. The hype told us that learning to code is dead because language is all you need. The data just proved the opposite. To truly master the vibe, you still need to understand how the machine thinks.
6
6
32
4,265
Matthew Brooks retweeted
Engineers in 2026 are more productive and more overloaded than they have ever been. Both at once. Business teams build their own tools now. That work didn't disappear - it moved. Someone still has to host the thing, secure it, and connect it to systems that already exist. Agents close more tickets in a week than a whole team did a year ago. But the amount of change that can safely reach production hasn't grown to match, so the queue in front of review and deploy just gets longer. Writing code stopped being the constraint. Deciding what is worth writing, and proving it is safe to ship, is the constraint now.
1
3
3
840
Matthew Brooks retweeted
If you're an academic (and can prove it with an ORCID), consider signing a petition protesting the University of Ghent's suspension of a postdoc for exposing academic misconduct, a blatant violation of academic freedom (as always, regardless of your agreement with all of the whistleblower's views). johnarmstrongmaths.com/openl… johnarmstrongmaths.com/openl…
993
299
7,234
1,116,546
Matthew Brooks retweeted
So here for the GLP's finest grift reaching a whole new audience.
7
16
376
23,204
Matthew Brooks retweeted
The endorsement we wanted!
Jolyon Maugham says 'we are going to take the fight right to the throats of these vile outlets' - announces paid ad campaign to try to reach the subscribers of @DailyMail @Telegraph @thetimes @spectator
119
141
11
2,067
139,841
STATEMENT: The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) was troubled to see academics smeared from the stage at last night’s vigil for Jason Arday in Trafalgar Square. As reported by several national media outlets, Diane Abbott MP claimed that “other professors” had waged a three-year “vicious campaign” against Arday because they “just didn’t believe that a black man should be a Cambridge professor”. That is a serious, categorical imputation of racist motive, and those familiar with the controversy could reasonably have understood Abbott’s remarks as referring to a small, identifiable group of academics known to have raised concerns about Arday’s work. Unfortunate though it is to revisit those events at such a desperately sad moment, we feel obliged to restate what the factual record — much of it established publicly long before Abbott’s remarks — shows about one of those academics whom CAF is supporting. David Harris, Professor Emeritus at Plymouth Marjon University, first raised concerns about Arday’s doctoral thesis and subsequent peer-reviewed publications in May 2023. A sociologist with a longstanding interest in how ideas from the critical theory tradition are used in empirical educational research, Harris encountered Arday’s work amid the publicity surrounding his appointment as Professor of Sociology of Education at Cambridge two months earlier. Harris privately raised concerns with Arday about what he called “puzzling similarities” in reported data, repeated passages and possible failures of attribution. His covering email concluded simply: “I would welcome any response.” This was not, in other words, a “vicious campaign”, but an emeritus professor engaging closely with another scholar’s published work, identifying apparent problems and asking that they be examined. Several of Harris’s concerns subsequently resulted in corrections to Arday’s published work. When it emerged last month that Arday had reported Harris to the police for harassment, CAF warned of the chilling effect of invoking the law against awkward scholarly criticism, exposing academics who test published claims or raise questions about research integrity to allegations of criminal wrongdoing and prolonged police investigation. That same chilling effect arises when Harris’s scholarly scrutiny is retrospectively recast by a senior parliamentarian as racial animus before a large public gathering and amplified through the media. The scholarly community has traditionally governed its own standards, and its ability to continue doing so depends upon academics being free to ask difficult questions about one another’s work, even where those questions may prove embarrassing or reputationally damaging. Without that freedom, the processes through which scholarship corrects itself and academic standards are maintained cannot properly function. In those circumstances, CAF will be writing to Ms Abbott asking her to withdraw or correct her remarks and making clear the seriousness with which we regard them. Should those remarks cause him serious professional or reputational harm, including any loss of academic title, status or institutional privileges, we will ensure that he receives appropriate specialist advice on any legal remedies that may be available to him.
727
2,289
309
9,994
1,176,773
Matthew Brooks retweeted
Jason Arday has died, which is a tragic development in the highly publicised plagiarism and fabulism DEI scandal he was in the centre of. We don't know how of why he died, but there's a lot of speculation that it was by suicide. Anyone who followed this scandal will know that none of the people who tried to hold Arday and the institutions that enabled him accountable, have called for such a terrible outcome. Instead, people called for admission of wrongdoing, reflection on the societal mechanisms that allowed it to escalate and go on for so long, and some, who were personally and negatively affected, sought justice. However, blame is already flying around, so I want to say something about this. Firstly, no suicide has a single cause. There are helpful media guidelines about reporting on this topic and I suggest all journalists read them in order to cover this event responsibly. Secondly, although loss of life for any reason is shocking and tragic, people need to consider that had Jason Arday not been exposed, he would have continued to lie, draw a large salary from a university and speakers fees, and misuse serious medical conditions for personal gain, while giving seriously sick people and their families a false hope as well as a feeling of being a failure. Arday also had a history of slinging false racism accusations at anyone who tried to hold him to an account or simply question his dubious claims. He - or perhaps the ecosystem of self-serving people who enabled him, I don't know - even set a highly litigious law firm on journalists who attempted to expose him in the past. All these are deliberate, systematic and consistent choices. Coming clean, apologising, taking responsibility for his actions, were also some of the choices that were available to Arday. But this is not what he chose to do. Instead, he doubled down repeatedly, and now he is dead. In case that this was a suicide, we need to keep in mind that sometimes people choose that way out instead of facing up to consequences of their behaviour. None of this is the fault of people who exposed the lies, or spoke up about the ways they themselves were affected. People have not just the right but a duty to call out bad behaviour in others, and point out when something is obviously and blatantly wrong. It is not acceptable, or sustainable, to expect others to stay quiet about serious transgressions. Our society has just gone through two decades of pernicious ideologies and practices, which explicitly use emotional blackmail and threats of suicide to stop others from holding them to an account. This tactic is never sustainable in the long term, because unopposed, harms just end up mounting and spiralling out of control, hurting more and more people. If this tragic outcome was Jason Arday's choice, I wish he had made a different one. I wish that people who enabled him had de-escalated the situation far earlier and more effectivelly. I have no doubt we will hear more in the coming days, but I sincerely hope that the publishing of Jason Arday's memoir, which has been proven to be largely fiction, will be delayed, because that would be a responsible thing to do under the circumstances. And I hope that the society will engage with this tragedy mindfully, because there are a lot of issues that have been negatively affecting large sections of our society, which have came together in this scandal.
44
161
19
753
18,447
Matthew Brooks retweeted
Prof Hilary Cremin @CamEdFac is a disgrace to Education. Baroness Morgan @FitzwilliamColl and Sonita Alleyne @JesusCollegeCam need to resign. And so should the Vice Chancellor of @Cambridge_Uni, Deborah Prentice, who has plunged this once great University to the depths. All those who sat on the two panels and judged Jason Arday worthy of two professorial positions need to search their souls. I said a few days ago that this scandal was of Shakespearean proportions: it is now a monumental tragedy. Shame on all those who never assessed his academic inadequacy and the consequences for his emotional vulnerability.
Jason Arday is dead. Absolutely awful news. Utterly, utterly dreadful outcome. I said that @Cambridge_Uni @CamEdFac have a duty of care. I hope to God they gave him all the support they could because this tragedy is on them. His poor wife and children must be given every support.
59
352
26
1,637
76,749
Matthew Brooks retweeted
i'm both a perfectionist and a procrastinator, so i'm constantly stressed about the quality of something i haven't even started.
79
10,467
369
40,898
522,176
Matthew Brooks retweeted
I love strange perfumes. Among the things in my collection, some are strange but not repulsive. Carlen Parfum's "Butch Femme" is almost an exact reproduction of phở, the Vietnamese beef soup; D. Grayi's "Jasmine Rice" smells like the fresh steam pluming out of a rice cooker when you first open it. Lalique's "Encre Noire A L'Extreme" is burnt black rubber with vetiver. Nasomatto's "Pardon" is gasoline mixed with incense, oud, and dark chocolate. Increasing in strangeness, Apoteker Tepe's "After the Food" smells like you've fallen, face first, into a wet peaty bog. There's also boiled carrot somewhere in there. Moth and Rabbit's "Duke of Burgundy" is one of the stranger scents I've tried. It's inspired by Peter Strickland's 2014 film of the same name, which depicts a lesbian relationship between a lepidopterist (a person who studies moths and butterflies) and her student/housemaid. Their relationship is characterized by elaborate domination-and-submission role-play and daily rituals with tension around who gets to set the rules. Moth and Rabbit's olfactory version of this film has been described as sensual, soft, and musky. I detected a sweet, flowery accord with peach, jasmine, osmanthus, and green notes. But there's also ... well ... a urinous note that lasts for about fifteen to twenty minutes. It smells like used underwear. When the urinous note subsides, you get something that smells like Lincoln or Saphir shoe polish. Not like smelling the polish straight out of the tin, but more like the smell that lingers in the air after you polish your leather shoes. In the dry down, this becomes musk, amber, and cedar. I found the scent interesting, but decided against buying a bottle because I don't want to smell like used underwear or shoe polish. Ruth Mastenbroek's "Oxford" has been on my to-buy list for a while. Inspired by the perfumer's experience at Oxford university, where she studied chemistry at Lady Margaret Hall, it's supposed to replicate the scent of cigarettes from the French Gitanes. It reminded me of old, dusty libraries with leather armchairs and wooden tables. I wish I bought a bottle when I had the chance. Much more wearable, I think, than "Duke of Burgundy."
Been getting into weird perfume Reddit. Sorry to anyone who has to share physical space with me
53
69
17
1,860
178,739
Anyone who denies a Black person’s right to plagiarize—that is, commit fraud, obtain credentials unethically, and steal the work of others—is right-wing and plagiarismophobic.
Jason Arday is the youngest Black professor in Cambridge’s history – and now rightwing newspapers are trying to smear him with untrue accusations of plagiarism. Not on our watch. Add your name in solidarity with Jason here: goodlaw.social/sktj
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The information in this video is outdated and incorrect. Arday has resigned his professorship at Cambridge without admitting fault. He did this after an enormous amount of additional information demonstrating his fabulism and plagiarism came to light. thetimes.com/uk/education/a… nytimes.com/2026/08/03/boo…
34
127
4
1,132
29,400