▲ 107 ▼ One of the biggest game decompilation sites is closing because AI has ‘broken the community aspect’ (www.videogameschronicle.com) submitted 2 weeks ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca 22 comments fedilink hide all child comments More knowledge lost due to AI.
[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 61 points 2 weeks ago (15 children) We don't hate AI enough. permalink fedilink source hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world [S] 42 points 2 weeks ago (3 children) There's a lot to hate about AI but for me, it's like the owner of the site says, it's the fact that people don't use AI as a tool but use it to produce crap because the people who are using it has no clue about the software and techniques behind it and have no desire to learn. We're losing institutional knowledge and the passions behind it, which is not good in the long term. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Losing knowledge, discouraging future experiments from future "junior" developers, and AIs relying on that knowledge fixed in time is the worst that can happen to software development. I'm usually a positive guy, but I don't see how it can be good for the future. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 2 weeks ago Yeah...I really like AI, it's such a fun tool to build things with. It's like magic But I don't know how we're going to make new senior devs like this. The baby coders are being deprived of opportunities to go through all the trials by fire that give you the intuitive understanding of how software works permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago* Nor good for who. When people can't put on their pants without AI and they start charging 1000 a month. I'd that is even enough they are golden. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (9 children) In a statement posted on the site’s homepage, @encounter notes that while they don’t believe AI is the main issue in itself, because when used properly and ethically it “can expedite the decompilation process in a significant way”, the “community aspect of decompilation has been broken” by people using AI in more questionable ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me -2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children) If the only justification for continued use of a tool is that it would be great in a hypothetical world where people don't use it incorrectly, then there's no justification for continued use of the tool. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (7 children) I guess this is a philosophical issue, to me it works the other way round. It's not the tech that's the issue, but it is broader democratic social organizational forms that need reform to make adoption of tech (LLM/genAI or other technology) or a wide range of other issues a lot more equitable. LLM/ML tech is the future, it's not like the crypto/NFT scams, not even close. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you're waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you'll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn't the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn't going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) This may be true, but forms of social organisation can and do change and improve. It's not possible to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to technology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren't worth the cost, it doesn't need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can't make money off of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) They are not making any money because because the legal/economic/social system of the US doesn't require profitability at this stage, that comes later once they achieve a monopoly-like position and they switch to more explicit rent-seeking behaviour and more direct corruption methods. FWIW, we probably agree on much more than this short convo would imply. I am just looking at things from a different angle. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago Just look at the gaming subs celebrating this. G*mers are a bunch of troglodytes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world [S] 42 points 2 weeks ago (3 children) There's a lot to hate about AI but for me, it's like the owner of the site says, it's the fact that people don't use AI as a tool but use it to produce crap because the people who are using it has no clue about the software and techniques behind it and have no desire to learn. We're losing institutional knowledge and the passions behind it, which is not good in the long term. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Losing knowledge, discouraging future experiments from future "junior" developers, and AIs relying on that knowledge fixed in time is the worst that can happen to software development. I'm usually a positive guy, but I don't see how it can be good for the future. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 2 weeks ago Yeah...I really like AI, it's such a fun tool to build things with. It's like magic But I don't know how we're going to make new senior devs like this. The baby coders are being deprived of opportunities to go through all the trials by fire that give you the intuitive understanding of how software works permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago* Nor good for who. When people can't put on their pants without AI and they start charging 1000 a month. I'd that is even enough they are golden. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Losing knowledge, discouraging future experiments from future "junior" developers, and AIs relying on that knowledge fixed in time is the worst that can happen to software development. I'm usually a positive guy, but I don't see how it can be good for the future. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 2 weeks ago Yeah...I really like AI, it's such a fun tool to build things with. It's like magic But I don't know how we're going to make new senior devs like this. The baby coders are being deprived of opportunities to go through all the trials by fire that give you the intuitive understanding of how software works permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 2 weeks ago Yeah...I really like AI, it's such a fun tool to build things with. It's like magic But I don't know how we're going to make new senior devs like this. The baby coders are being deprived of opportunities to go through all the trials by fire that give you the intuitive understanding of how software works permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago* Nor good for who. When people can't put on their pants without AI and they start charging 1000 a month. I'd that is even enough they are golden. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (9 children) In a statement posted on the site’s homepage, @encounter notes that while they don’t believe AI is the main issue in itself, because when used properly and ethically it “can expedite the decompilation process in a significant way”, the “community aspect of decompilation has been broken” by people using AI in more questionable ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me -2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children) If the only justification for continued use of a tool is that it would be great in a hypothetical world where people don't use it incorrectly, then there's no justification for continued use of the tool. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (7 children) I guess this is a philosophical issue, to me it works the other way round. It's not the tech that's the issue, but it is broader democratic social organizational forms that need reform to make adoption of tech (LLM/genAI or other technology) or a wide range of other issues a lot more equitable. LLM/ML tech is the future, it's not like the crypto/NFT scams, not even close. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you're waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you'll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn't the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn't going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) This may be true, but forms of social organisation can and do change and improve. It's not possible to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to technology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren't worth the cost, it doesn't need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can't make money off of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) They are not making any money because because the legal/economic/social system of the US doesn't require profitability at this stage, that comes later once they achieve a monopoly-like position and they switch to more explicit rent-seeking behaviour and more direct corruption methods. FWIW, we probably agree on much more than this short convo would imply. I am just looking at things from a different angle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me -2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children) If the only justification for continued use of a tool is that it would be great in a hypothetical world where people don't use it incorrectly, then there's no justification for continued use of the tool. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (7 children) I guess this is a philosophical issue, to me it works the other way round. It's not the tech that's the issue, but it is broader democratic social organizational forms that need reform to make adoption of tech (LLM/genAI or other technology) or a wide range of other issues a lot more equitable. LLM/ML tech is the future, it's not like the crypto/NFT scams, not even close. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you're waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you'll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn't the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn't going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) This may be true, but forms of social organisation can and do change and improve. It's not possible to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to technology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren't worth the cost, it doesn't need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can't make money off of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) They are not making any money because because the legal/economic/social system of the US doesn't require profitability at this stage, that comes later once they achieve a monopoly-like position and they switch to more explicit rent-seeking behaviour and more direct corruption methods. FWIW, we probably agree on much more than this short convo would imply. I am just looking at things from a different angle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (7 children) I guess this is a philosophical issue, to me it works the other way round. It's not the tech that's the issue, but it is broader democratic social organizational forms that need reform to make adoption of tech (LLM/genAI or other technology) or a wide range of other issues a lot more equitable. LLM/ML tech is the future, it's not like the crypto/NFT scams, not even close. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you're waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you'll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn't the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn't going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) This may be true, but forms of social organisation can and do change and improve. It's not possible to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to technology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren't worth the cost, it doesn't need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can't make money off of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) They are not making any money because because the legal/economic/social system of the US doesn't require profitability at this stage, that comes later once they achieve a monopoly-like position and they switch to more explicit rent-seeking behaviour and more direct corruption methods. FWIW, we probably agree on much more than this short convo would imply. I am just looking at things from a different angle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you're waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you'll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn't the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn't going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) This may be true, but forms of social organisation can and do change and improve. It's not possible to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to technology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren't worth the cost, it doesn't need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can't make money off of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) This may be true, but forms of social organisation can and do change and improve. It's not possible to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to technology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren't worth the cost, it doesn't need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can't make money off of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren't worth the cost, it doesn't need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can't make money off of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 point 2 weeks ago That's exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they're letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they're failing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) They are not making any money because because the legal/economic/social system of the US doesn't require profitability at this stage, that comes later once they achieve a monopoly-like position and they switch to more explicit rent-seeking behaviour and more direct corruption methods. FWIW, we probably agree on much more than this short convo would imply. I am just looking at things from a different angle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) They are not making any money because because the legal/economic/social system of the US doesn't require profitability at this stage, that comes later once they achieve a monopoly-like position and they switch to more explicit rent-seeking behaviour and more direct corruption methods. FWIW, we probably agree on much more than this short convo would imply. I am just looking at things from a different angle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago Just look at the gaming subs celebrating this. G*mers are a bunch of troglodytes. permalink fedilink source parent