i know we’ve had our fun putting middle fingers up towards Adobe and the like, but these kinds of restrictions are needed to protect developers who aren’t insanely wealthy.
from the article, which i’m sure you all read:
And yet there are situations that merit some discussion, like the recent controversy about the Steam Next Fest being chock-full of AI slop copied from existing titles. That particular situation is getting particularly nasty, as game developers are reportedly being extorted under threat that their game demos will be cloned into complete games before they have a chance to finish and release the original.
Adding insult to injury, this is seemingly being done to small studios whose main priority is usually “having food,” rather than big publishers looking to microtransaction everything into a new yacht for shareholders.
But this is restricting the user, not protecting the developers.
Unscrupulous developers can rip off code using another model, including local ones that can make literally anything. Opt-in protections against doing something bad to someone else don’t work.
i mean, it’s better than literally nothing, right?
i’d like it if developers had access to a tool that makes it impossible for AI to decompile our programs, or if any government ever made legislation about AI so we could sue when someone else uses Ai to copy our IP, or if it was at all feasible for the average indie gamedev to afford a lawyer.
but none of that is the case right now, so all that indie devs can hope for at the moment is that the creators of other models follow Antrhopic’s lead here, or that they get sued into doing something like this.
note: i’m biased since i got my degree in gamedev earlier this year, and i personally dislike AI. i hope my perspective is still useful, though.
and if there’s a better solution, i’d genuinely like to hear it
I think it’s worse than nothing because it won’t stop unscrupulous users, but will hit legitimate developers.
Bias: senior dev, agree with Linus Torvalds on LLM use.
I don’t think copyright is a coherent idea, and we’re watching it reach its inevitable conclusion now. It would be better if we relied on government funding and/or crowdfunding.
i know we’ve had our fun putting middle fingers up towards Adobe and the like, but these kinds of restrictions are needed to protect developers who aren’t insanely wealthy.
from the article, which i’m sure you all read:
But this is restricting the user, not protecting the developers.
Unscrupulous developers can rip off code using another model, including local ones that can make literally anything. Opt-in protections against doing something bad to someone else don’t work.
It’s like selling cars with Tullock spikes.
i mean, it’s better than literally nothing, right?
i’d like it if developers had access to a tool that makes it impossible for AI to decompile our programs, or if any government ever made legislation about AI so we could sue when someone else uses Ai to copy our IP, or if it was at all feasible for the average indie gamedev to afford a lawyer.
but none of that is the case right now, so all that indie devs can hope for at the moment is that the creators of other models follow Antrhopic’s lead here, or that they get sued into doing something like this.
note: i’m biased since i got my degree in gamedev earlier this year, and i personally dislike AI. i hope my perspective is still useful, though.
and if there’s a better solution, i’d genuinely like to hear it
I think it’s worse than nothing because it won’t stop unscrupulous users, but will hit legitimate developers.
Bias: senior dev, agree with Linus Torvalds on LLM use.
I don’t think copyright is a coherent idea, and we’re watching it reach its inevitable conclusion now. It would be better if we relied on government funding and/or crowdfunding.