you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 75 points 3 weeks ago (35 children)

Yawn, more cuck coded bullshit. No thanks

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

    Honest question to help me identify with all the constant 'new decomp!' spam - How can you tell on this one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    Check the github linked in the post, (nearly?) every commit is "coauthored" by Claude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Thanks! That site never feels user friendly. TIL - I could just click on commits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    GitHub isn’t for users it’s for devs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Then why is it widely used to distribute software to users?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Because it's free hosting, and if you use it for code, you already have your project on there.

    Part of the issue is that doing anything more involved requires the developer to now put work into setting up another solution, and usually the developer wants to work on the project, not on making a website or launcher for the project.

    Also worth noting is the typical Linux ideology, where the developer isn't in charge of getting software to users, they're expected to set the project up so it compiles consistently, and the distribution maintainers are then expected to package it for their distro.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 37 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Literally all the modern recompilations are AI-driven.

    There are various levels of involvement of human actors in the loop, but if you don’t want to use any AI project, just ignore them all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    My largest gripe is they all feel like they're just tossed out there en mass like a speedrun and lord only knows if they'd have any post support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (13 children)

    cuck

    Meaning, they code anything they want while you can't and just stand aside and look?

    EDIT: Perfect

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

    Bad meme. It's not their project!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    It's their project that was based on existing game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    They did nothing aside from the instructions. So their project is setting the agent, not the result of the agent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    So when I use Photoshop that's filled with AI tools or After Effects with AI 3D tracking to accelerate my project, it's not my project because the work was made easier because of modern tools?

    It's a yes or no question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Prompting an AI agent is not the same as using photoshop. It is more comparable to commissioning something (art, code, writing, etc). You don't have authorship, the LLM does in this case. That doesn't mean you can't own the piece that gets created, that's what commissioning is, you just can't claim you authored it. Though whether you or the company that runs the model owns the output is still not a settled question legally speaking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    No, this is pretty settled. Generative outputs such as these are not owned by anyone. As you said, the AI "authored" it similarly to a commissioned work and cannot hold a copyright so there was nothing to assign to the prompt writer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Last I checked, AI creations cannot be copyrighted if human work was not involved (no human - no copyrights). This means that if you had to do something by yourself, even compiling, then there was human. While for AI generated images it's quite clear you will not own it, but software tends to be more advanced, ChatGPT doesn't just send you an exe file, you have to put it together by yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago

    Again this is the difference between authorship and ownership. While I'm no lawyer, to my understanding you must demonstrate that what you did was genuinely transformative to claim authorship.

    You use compiling the code an LLM gives you as an example of this. Does a person running gentoo have the ability to claim authorship of all the software on their machine because they compiled it?

    I think the only thing you can certainly claim authorship over is the prompt(s) that were used to generate the output.

    Another good example of this is compilers. How often do you see people claim authorship of the assembly generated as an intermediary step of the gcc?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    I feel like there are two things

    1. People with limited knowledge using AI to achieve things that they personally aren't able to do
    2. People with knowledge using AI to achieve things human brains can't do

    I'm not smart enough to know which one of these actually applies in this situation, but I feel that they are distinctly different and justify a use case. My layman understanding is reverse engineering software like this is completely not feasible with just sheer human willpower

    If you are informed on this subject please enlighten me which of these apply if any

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    This would likely have been a multi-year effort if done manually by experts on hobby time, and impossible if the person using AI didn't know what they were doing.

    The LLM would have gotten stuck for sure without proper guidance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    For technically impressive things you just need to level up as a human. AI can help find information to accelerate that a bit.

    Reverse engineering is not hard, just tedious. That is why AI is perfect for it. It won't get bored.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

    I'm sorry but this increasingly an "old man yells at cloud" take. This is not going away, and will just get more common.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    It's not an "old man yells at cloud" take at all, sweetie. It's just the truth. Your overgrown autocomplete isn't a substitute for actual knowledge and skill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Knowledge and skill didn't port Bloodborne to the PC tho

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments