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.

Well tell me where AI companies are giving credit

I will admit that it is possible I need to make my position a little clearer. The vast majority of comments on this platform are overwhelmingly critical of AI in other posts, yet many of those same people were praising it when it was being used to decompile video games and jailbreak the PS5.

I am simply, once again, pointing out the two-faced nature of this platform. My gripe, if you will, is consistency. If you hate AI, then hate it for everything it does, including the things that might actually be beneficial. It’s convenient to play both sides and act as a devil’s advocate when it suits your position, but ultimately, that’s a useless and self-defeating stance.

If you’re going to take a centrist position on AI, then do that. Praise it where it deserves praise and criticize it where it deserves criticism. But don’t turn around and say you hate everything about AI in one breath, only to make an exception when it happens to serve your interests.

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.

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.

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.

you want vibe coded apps with basic diy security principles?