I… Completely agree and my comment wasn’t meant for you. You have no idea how often I encounter people that simply do not understand or know exactly what these llms do and they simply dislike them for the sake of being part of the bandwagon, I am generally irritated by these people. The ones that say out loud that they hate everything that AI does and then when it does something generally useful and they don’t hate that one particular thing. It’s extremely two-faced and inconsistent and absolutely bothers me.
you’re on the wrong platform buddy.
go run off to Reddit where the bots will agree with whatever bullshit you’re spewing.
It’s out of the box.
They can try, but, it’s too late.
Don’t hesitate, bring them to thier knees.
Is reversing with Deepseek just as good?
If not now, probably at some point it will.
Why just games? What about the Photoshop clone? Seems like making a derivative of anything should be blocked, but that’s all it can really do in the first place.
Seems like making a derivative of anything should be blocked
So we should get rid of anything in-the-likeness-of? Like Libre Office Writer being in the likeness of Microsoft Word.
I think their point is that it was trained on literally billions of repos and other software written, but because those developers don’t have hundreds of lawyers on retainer with an unlimited budget; their intellectual property rights don’t seem to be a concern to the slopmasters.
I think that the problem is that big companies have made “an offer they cannot refuse” regarding the problem of AI cloning commercial products.
This almost feels like some sort of oxymoron.
Big tech is supposed to reverse engineer individual devs and artists not the other way around, stahp!!
Major software companies and publishers are realising AI companies put their profit motive at risk.
Why buy the latest Mario game when you can have a version custom built for you? Why get an Adobe subscription when the cloned version is available?
That can be applied to any software now. Two industries are facing off.
This is why AI generated content should belong to EVERYONE. There should be no profit in it, because the content used belongs to humanity.
AI should belong in the history book of bad technologies, alongside with leaded fuel and asbestos.
Yet another absolutely fascinating comment section. Let me try to understand what is happening here.
Are some of you upset because Claude can no longer do this? Were you perfectly happy with AI being used to decompile games and circumvent Sony’s PlayStation ecosystem when it was being used to stick it to a major corporation? But now that Anthropic has decided to prohibit this particular use of its technology, suddenly AI is terrible again? Suddenly it devalues human labor, which, incidentally, isn’t really what is happening here. In many instances, it eliminates the need for that labor altogether.
Then there are those arguing that only AI companies should be allowed to do these things, rather than independent individuals. Which is, quite frankly, a ridiculous argument. Companies have every right to dictate how their products and services are used, particularly when we’re talking about a proprietary service like Claude. You don’t own Claude. You don’t purchase the underlying technology. It belongs to Anthropic, and Anthropic gets to establish the terms under which it is made available.
So which is it? Do you oppose AI on principle, or do you only oppose it when it doesn’t serve your particular interests? Is AI the enemy of human creativity and labor, except when it’s being used to accomplish something you personally want?
I’d appreciate a little consistency from this user base. Surely that’s not too much to ask.
So which is it?
Multiple things can be true at once, or change their status and realization as the world revolves. Very few facts get the honour of remaining as true axioms.
Is AI the enemy of human creativity and labor, except when it’s being used to accomplish something you personally want?
It’s the enemy of human creativity and labour, even when it’s being used to accomplish something I personally want. But if as you say, I don’t get to choose how the technology is used, then there is good moral reason to not be glad when its action happens to align with your intent. After all, we are glad for fair weather every once in a while.
May I remind you also that the worker class were quite certainly not the owners of the pitchforks and guillotines with which they rebelled against their oppressors.
The user base isn’t homogenous
I like that Claude can jailbreak consoles and decomp and port games quickly. These are projects that are cool, have utility, are obnoxiously difficult and or tedious, and exclusively unpaid. Is it better if some super coder does it all? Probably, but the unpaid bit means progress is painfully slow and limited to people doing passion projects. But is it also cool I can play a bunch of retro games natively on basically any platform and then jailbreak a ps5 to run Linux and steam? Yes
The usual fallacy of treating the comment section as if it were a unified single opinion.
Also, false dichotomy. There’s plenty of other options, some of which make a lot more sense.
Your first comment, accusing me of treating the comment section as one unified opinion, is a straw man. It is significantly easier to defend an argument when you change it entirely, rather than address what I actually said. I was arguably addressing the comment section as a collective, not suggesting that every individual held the exact same opinion. Your response demonstrates that you either misunderstand or are misusing the term logical fallacy.
Your second statement is pure nonsense for the same reason. You clearly don’t understand what a false dichotomy is. I didn’t introduce a dichotomy or present two mutually exclusive positions. I simply asked a question: which is it?
Please stop throwing around logical fallacies when you don’t understand what they mean. It derails the conversation entirely. Instead of addressing the substance of my argument, you’ve changed the discussion into an argument about whether I understand logical fallacies. Worse, you’ve completely avoided addressing the actual point I was making. That’s precisely the kind of diversion that prevents any meaningful discussion.
Claude rests on a foundation of open source contributions hoovered up with license files sent to /dev/null. The unexpected positive we had for a little while was that maybe it could pry open the walled gardens of applications (conincidentally also built atop the same open source contributions). But it wasn’t to be, only big corporations get to use this benefit.
But they’re not. Big corporations aren’t decompiling games, modifying them, and then distributing them for free. They’re not even doing it for profit.
In a grand act of irony, they stopped potential copyright infringement involving the very games being decompiled and redistributed.
My complaint, and the point I’m calling out, is that people on this platform will praise technology when it’s convenient for them, only to throw it under the bus when it becomes convenient to do so. Even when, in this particular instance, the technology provider technically did the right thing by putting a stop to the activity. Although, no doubt, this was prompted by pressure from Sony, Rockstar, and other concerned parties.
My take on it is that AI has been thrusted into everyone’s face without need or want and with no consideration to original content developers that the AI was trained on. There then became a use case where it allowed access to previously locked down corporate products. Within the span of weeks, this access has now been blocked /removed. This highlights that corporations will always protect corporations (AI didn’t give a shit about creative commons). When individuals push back the response is “suck it up, you should appreciate it” when it impacts a corporations bottom line or IP then there’s immediate changes. This forecasts that AI is not for value or benefit of people but of corporations.
Self host a QWEN model on a budget server build.
American AI is so centralized that utilizing AI, as an end user without having some loser looking over your shoulder or demanding a monthly fee, is difficult.
The legitimate developers I know aren’t hit by Claude restrictions, because they don’t fucking use it.
Linus Torvalds uses it. I’d consider him a legitimate developer.
“was legitimate”
Ftfy
Gotta say… The Playstation debacle and resulting backlash has somewhat changed my mind on AI as a coding tool.
I still don’t like it, ethically and economically, but if “they” are going to use it to cut costs and punch down, then we can use it to invalidate them and punch up.
I doubt it will make the next great game or piece of software, but it can absolutely let us take a ps5 exclusive and run it on a PC.
Again, we still need actual developers who know what and why they do what they do, same with artists… but enabling a home-brew hobbyist to put mario kart in skyrim or whatever is pretty neat. Just wish it didn’t seem to require clear cutting a forest.
Only the AI companies are allowed to plagiarize.
What exactly are you suggesting here? That using an LLM to reverse-engineer a video game, modify its code, and create an entirely new experience constitutes plagiarism?
Do you understand what plagiarism actually means? It means passing off someone else’s work as your own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone uses AI to reverse-engineer software, modify an existing game, or develop an entirely new way to experience it.
There may be legitimate arguments to be made about copyright infringement and intellectual property rights, but those are entirely different discussions.
And what does the statement about AI companies being the only ones allowed to plagiarize even mean? Are you suggesting that modifying an existing video game is somehow equivalent to an AI company training a model on copyrighted material?
You’re conflating completely different concepts, and the result is an accusation that doesn’t even make sense in the context of what’s being discussed.
What I’ve presented here is the absurd concept that AI companies exist after having stolen a wealth of human intellectual property and haven’t paid for or attributed any value to the original creators. And now that they have this, they are gatekeeping how it gets used.
But I said it in a punchy one-liner with a sarcastic undertone, and I’m afraid that’s where I lost you.
Open source developer here, AI is regularly being used to erase the original developers and artists.
You know what I liked in memes with “stolen” art? There was something to look up to, there was something to become part of our collective culture. Call me a hippie or “irrational” but this is why AI is like the second coming of asbestos, even if it becomes better over time.
Here’s my game engine, feel free to fork the shit out of it. Feel free to rewrite it in Rust to “make it better”. Feel free to borrow parts of it. My only problem if you do it with AI, so you neither learn during the process of doing it, and you manage to erase me in the process.
The whole reverse engineering craze is being used, so most game devs will be so disillusioned they will leave the industry, and AI vendors can sell expensive subscriptions instead. The AI bros are really angry, that their shiny new technology didn’t immediately disrupt the existing creative industry enough.
Your reverse engineering argument might have a point but plagiarism regarding AI should be more obvious. Indeed AI is trained on the collective publicly available knowledge humans have deposited on the internet and then sold back to the same people for a fee without any acknowledgement let alone sharing of profits in someway. It is similar to the kind of unethical behaviour where some academic publishers are employing aggressive marketing strategies to sell public science back to public at high costs. Ofcourse there is still the argument that these AI companies are only charging for operational costs, which may be true for some. But I am willing to bet money that if LLMs becomes an integral part of the modern world then they will turn down this tap to a bare trickle at exorbitant prices. Sam Altman himself confessed as much (he said something along the lines of envisioning a future where AI becomes an on demand information and skill tap, you fill in the rest). Operating something at a loss is a known capitalistic strategy to get people used to your product and drive smaller competition out of market so in a decade or so you become the monopolistic owner of an essential service.
Absolutely! Private corporations are going to milk these models for everything they can fortunately, there’s a lot of really good open source out there.
Chatgpt won’t give me bass sheet music to Ella Fitzgerald’s version of How High the Moon, due to concerns of plagiarism.
I wouldn’t put it past anthropic to deny the request.
Not because of plagiarism. It’s not concerned about plagiarism. It’s concerned about copyright infringement. It is not creating the bass sheet for you and then claiming it as their own novel intellectual property that they just made up on their own.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
Well tell me where AI companies are giving credit
Once again, this comment doesn’t make any sense. The word plagiarize is being misused here AI companies and their product the llm aren’t committing plagiarism. So I’m not sure who you want them to credit. They have already disclosed where they’re getting their training data from do you want them to name every individually? And even if they did, what conceivable purpose would that serve? None of them are getting any royalties from it. Because using training data isn’t necessarily copyright infringement and is in fact still an ongoing legal matter in the courts. And even if they did, the amount of information that is used as training data is so massive that a credit section wouldn’t use all usability it can tens of thousands of individual names. You ever sit there and read the credits at the end of the movie?
“The internet” is not actually a valid source.
Yes, I indeed want people to be named individually. The internet is not one Organisation that people generate IP for.
Of course crediting everybody would be ridiculous, but stealing the entire internet is not?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that LLMs are trained on publicly available data. In other words, they’re not stealing or pirating that data, just to simplify the argument. (Although, to be fair, some LLM developers have done exactly that and are facing legal consequences.)
Publicly available data is just that: publicly available. Anyone can access it, including individuals, businesses, and AI developers. They’re not stealing something that is freely accessible to literally everyone.
And that’s the dilemma: either that information is freely available to everyone, or it isn’t. You can’t argue that it’s free for you and me to access but somehow off-limits to OpenAI or Grok simply because they’re using it for a different purpose. That’s not how public access works.
So, they’re not stealing anything under the assumption we’re making here. To answer your original question, no, I don’t have an issue with them stealing the internet.
C’mon Claude, don’t do us that way!
Great time to know how to do things yourself.
I’m not sure making the tool you’re selling less useful is a smart idea. Hmm, yes liability is an issue. But other models are just gonna allow it anyway, so people will just stop using Claude for that usecase. Reverse engineering won’t stop. Claude will just not be used for it anymore
Don’t worry, it will also be more expensive too.
Can’t let the plebeian have too much fun
Hilarious
“Give us all your code for free who cares about copyright anyway”
“NOOOO YOU CANT USE OUR PRODUCT TO GET FRE CODE 😡😡😡”
This is another reason why I’ve reduced my dependency on AI considerably over the past few weeks, and I no longer personally pay for any AI tools/services at all.
It’s insane to think someone would pay for something and after using it for a couple days they get told they can’t use it for certain things anymore.
They enshittified too soon, before people depended on them.
Oh, based on my experience, there are plenty of people convinced they can’t do anything without Claude anymore. Also based on my experience, I would be ecstatic if they actually stopped trying to do work because they sucked both with and without Claude.
Maybe not enough to fund their financials, but that was going to be a tall order anyway.
Sure, but they can’t just let us plebs threaten their dominance in other areas.
