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.
No idea.
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.
I think the harder part I face is setting up qwen to be effective for my uses
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.
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.
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!!
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.
@GreenKnight23 @technology Copyright and Patents are only as good as your pockets are deep.
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.
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.
Chatgpt won’t give me bass sheet music to Ella Fitzgerald’s version of How High the Moon, due to concerns of edit: copyright issues (not 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.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
you’re right I went back into my conversations and it was indeed because of copyright issues not plagiarism
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.
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?
Hilarious
“Give us all your code for free who cares about copyright anyway”
“NOOOO YOU CANT USE OUR PRODUCT TO GET FRE CODE 😡😡😡”
AI exists to aid capital against you; not aid you against capital.
AI exists to devalue human labour.
I can only talk about software developers, but there it’s fucking pants on head to fire developers. It only makes sense if you don’t have any competitors.
More than 50% of software projects fail either because they run over time or over budgetl, but for obvious reason both. So you get this tool that increase your output, let’s say 10x. Does that mean that you can fire 9/10 developers? What does your competitors do? If they retain their developers they can smoke your company in months.
This assumes 10x the features at 2/3 the quality is a winning bet
The quality doesn’t matter. Look at a product like netsuite which dominates corporate accounting. It’s a total piece of shit. And overpriced one at that. But it has oracle in the name, so an executive can choose it with little thought and not take any blame because it was a “reasonable” choice that “everyone” uses. Much of corporate life is monkey see monkey do. Rarely does innovation happen because trying something different is a huge risk to some middle manager or execute that is just trying to make it to the next promotion or bonus.
Maybe your are right, software that checks all the boxes wins b2b deals even if it is a peice of shit
The reason a lot of these enterprises are looking to offload developers is because they see AI as accelerating their workforce. These businesses are doing the same thing as they were before, but with AI, which means they don’t have enough workload to justify having that many people on anymore (as long as they are using AI workloads). If one developer with AI can do the work of 3 to 10 developers without AI the logic is that they can have their developer headcount and still be ahead.
Not that I agree with what they’re doing, but this is the logic behind it.
I suspect we’ll see these features opened up for US-allied actors against their foreign competitors.
You can guarantee US auto companies are going to be free to reverse engineer software and manufacturing techniques of Chinese companies, for instance.
But you’re not going to be allowed to use Grok or Meta to hack your Tesla or BMW, pull out the OS, clone it as freeware, and offer a substitute unconstrained by subscription fees and gated upgrades.
Great time to know how to do things yourself.
I once asked Claude to check the app it vibecoded for security flaws and it didn’t want to do it.
It literally told me to look up some basic security principles and do it myself.
It literally told me to look up some basic security principles and do it myself.
I think that seems like excellent advice!
you want vibe coded apps with basic diy security principles?
Yeah their anti-hacking protections are over eager. Ask it to find bugs instead, or reasons we shouldnt deploy yet.
I hook mine up to some classical static analysys tools like sonar or codacy. Just ask it to remove the security findings and haven’t had an issue. Then again, been on vacation while all this shit has happened, so don’t know what to expect when I return.
The restrictions are so they can gradually institute tiered access fees. This is how the industry becomes profitable.
Tier based models = economic segregation. The poor can fuck off and the rich can pay for enterprise.
Only works if they get their competitors “regulated” so other models can’t offer unrestricted features for a lower price.
Only works if local models cannot do it.
They don’t need to worry about whether local models can do it. All they have to do is make difficult or remove the power to run a local model in the first place. By, for example, taking your RAM and putting it in a datacenter.
A solid door,
A few inhumane traps,
And a shotgun should stop that.
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.
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.
