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.
This almost feels like some sort of oxymoron.
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.
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.
100% just a paywall
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
o… it can still do this. if you pay for the super premium (hidden) tier
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.
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.
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’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.
The restrictions are so they can gradually institute tiered access fees. This is how the industry becomes profitable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It literally told me to look up some basic security principles and do it myself.
I think that seems like excellent advice!
Yeah their anti-hacking protections are over eager. Ask it to find bugs instead, or reasons we shouldnt deploy yet.
