- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I… Completely agree and my comment wasn’t meant for you. You have no idea how often I encounter people that simply do not understand or know exactly what these llms do and they simply dislike them for the sake of being part of the bandwagon, I am generally irritated by these people. The ones that say out loud that they hate everything that AI does and then when it does something generally useful and they don’t hate that one particular thing. It’s extremely two-faced and inconsistent and absolutely bothers me.
you’re on the wrong platform buddy.
go run off to Reddit where the bots will agree with whatever bullshit you’re spewing.
I am on the right platform, and I’ll use it whenever and however I see fit, within the TOS I agreed to when I created my account.
Maybe you should run off to Reddit, where you can make some kind of moral stand against the things you disagree with, rather than running around here in your own little yes-man echo chamber.
lemmy overwhelmingly disapproves of AI/LLM use. join the dbzer0 instance if you want to have a positive experience with that pile of shit you call an opinion.
I don’t care what Lemmy is overwhelmingly for or against. At all. I’m going to call out bandwagon bullshit every time I see it for as long as I feel like doing it.
Once again. You should go to that instance and do something about it.
And say what you want about “my opinion” it is correct.
As long as we’re in agreement.
It’s out of the box.
They can try, but, it’s too late.
Don’t hesitate, bring them to thier knees.
Is reversing with Deepseek just as good?
If not now, probably at some point it will.
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.
Seems like making a derivative of anything should be blocked
So we should get rid of anything in-the-likeness-of? Like Libre Office Writer being in the likeness of Microsoft Word.
I think their point is that it was trained on literally billions of repos and other software written, but because those developers don’t have hundreds of lawyers on retainer with an unlimited budget; their intellectual property rights don’t seem to be a concern to the slopmasters.
I think that the problem is that big companies have made “an offer they cannot refuse” regarding the problem of AI cloning commercial products.
This almost feels like some sort of oxymoron.
Big tech is supposed to reverse engineer individual devs and artists not the other way around, stahp!!
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.
AI should belong in the history book of bad technologies, alongside with leaded fuel and asbestos.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Linus Torvalds uses it. I’d consider him a legitimate developer.
“was legitimate”
Ftfy
Gotta say… The Playstation debacle and resulting backlash has somewhat changed my mind on AI as a coding tool.
I still don’t like it, ethically and economically, but if “they” are going to use it to cut costs and punch down, then we can use it to invalidate them and punch up.
I doubt it will make the next great game or piece of software, but it can absolutely let us take a ps5 exclusive and run it on a PC.
Again, we still need actual developers who know what and why they do what they do, same with artists… but enabling a home-brew hobbyist to put mario kart in skyrim or whatever is pretty neat. Just wish it didn’t seem to require clear cutting a forest.
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.
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.
Chatgpt won’t give me bass sheet music to Ella Fitzgerald’s version of How High the Moon, due to concerns of plagiarism.
I wouldn’t put it past anthropic to deny the request.
Not because of plagiarism. It’s not concerned about plagiarism. It’s concerned about copyright infringement. It is not creating the bass sheet for you and then claiming it as their own novel intellectual property that they just made up on their own.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
you’re right I went back into my conversations and it was indeed because of copyright issues not plagiarism
Well tell me where AI companies are giving credit
Once again, this comment doesn’t make any sense. The word plagiarize is being misused here AI companies and their product the llm aren’t committing plagiarism. So I’m not sure who you want them to credit. They have already disclosed where they’re getting their training data from do you want them to name every individually? And even if they did, what conceivable purpose would that serve? None of them are getting any royalties from it. Because using training data isn’t necessarily copyright infringement and is in fact still an ongoing legal matter in the courts. And even if they did, the amount of information that is used as training data is so massive that a credit section wouldn’t use all usability it can tens of thousands of individual names. You ever sit there and read the credits at the end of the movie?
“The internet” is not actually a valid source.
Yes, I indeed want people to be named individually. The internet is not one Organisation that people generate IP for.
Of course crediting everybody would be ridiculous, but stealing the entire internet is not?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that LLMs are trained on publicly available data. In other words, they’re not stealing or pirating that data, just to simplify the argument. (Although, to be fair, some LLM developers have done exactly that and are facing legal consequences.)
Publicly available data is just that: publicly available. Anyone can access it, including individuals, businesses, and AI developers. They’re not stealing something that is freely accessible to literally everyone.
And that’s the dilemma: either that information is freely available to everyone, or it isn’t. You can’t argue that it’s free for you and me to access but somehow off-limits to OpenAI or Grok simply because they’re using it for a different purpose. That’s not how public access works.
So, they’re not stealing anything under the assumption we’re making here. To answer your original question, no, I don’t have an issue with them stealing the internet.
The thing about ownership is that unless something else is specified, everything is ARR by default.
Adding insult to injury, they don’t care about licenses…
You may be allowed to consume but not to sell that content
But they’re not selling that content. I cannot begin to tell you how often I encounter this exact line of reasoning.
If a painter creates an original painting inspired by Rembrandt, Rembrandt’s estate doesn’t receive royalties simply because his work served as inspiration.
LLMs and other AI models generate novel content. They don’t simply copy established works and regurgitate them verbatim. The training process allows these models to identify patterns, relationships, and structures in enormous datasets, which they then use to generate new material.
As usual, much of the anti-AI rhetoric on this platform comes from a place of absolute ignorance regarding how these models actually work, how they function, and how they’re trained.
Can’t let the plebeian have too much fun
Great time to know how to do things yourself.
Local LLMs are the way to go on AI, they can’t suddenly change the model up on you. And also, I guess Anthropic just wants their models to be more useless ahead of going public? Because I presume people that want to use AI, who don’t care where they send their data to, but don’t want to nagged about how they can’t do benign programming and analysis tasks, will just choose another model provider.
Uhm yeah good luck with running anything locally after hardware prices double again and again. Big tech needs to be stopped. There is no wiggling out of this just by being a smart customer.
Thing is, I already am…
The price did grow several times in size, but even in the 4 to 5 digit price range, you or smaller companies can have a pretty competitive performing open source model as the frontier models from earlier this year and they are keeping pace.
Obviously I’d like the speculation bubble to end and the DRAM and GPU cartels broken up, as it’s late-stage capitalism where the existing regulations being unenforced on big tech because the regulators are in on it that’s the problem, not so much the AI tech itself. (Don’t get me wrong, the tech has bad sides to it too like stealing artwork, data centre environmental impact and whatnot, but just speaking to the cause of the component greedflation).
Yes it’s disgustingly expensive. I spent a whole lot of money on an old used GPU and it felt bad, but it didn’t feel dirty like paying for Claude would. And then a couple of weeks later the used prices for this GPU had risen by about 15%.
(I only use Claude at work when someone else is paying. And they’re about to make me redundant because Claude is cheaper than me.)
It’s more about not spooking investors. If it’s known that your AI is being used to reverse engineer software from well off corporations. They’re going to be a little less likely to invest if 1: They’re connected to any of those corporations 2: They’re concerned about future lawsuits heading their way.
And of course the actual fear of potential lawsuits landing on their door, or being named in lawsuits against people using their AI to do this.
Yes, if you want control over AI you MUST host it yourself in reality.
If investors aren’t spooked already, they’re mentally deficient anyway.
These corporations give these ai companies their data too. Many of them pretend to protect sensative data but we all know that’s not true.
So it certainly doesn’t make you look trust worthy when you ask a company to hook your ai up to their entire data base, then suddenly a million little clones are made by individuals using the same ai program you run.
Why? Reverse engineering is neither unethical or illegal.
It’s dangerous for IP, though.
Only if it is protected.Which code is afaik not.
It absolutely is.
Human-generated code absolutely is, correct. But AI-generated code is still untested. AI-generated art does not have copyright protection currently. My money is that AI-generated code will have copyright protection through some mental and legal gymnastics. Because money.
Oh, AI-generated code may not be, but like you said we don’t have a court ruling yet.
I don’t think it can’t be, but we’d first have to have models trained without violating the rights of all the authors of the works in the training data. Like if you trained a model only on GPL software, then the model and its output should also be GPL.
In the US code is copyrighted the same as literary works. But that only covers the actual lines of code and not the ideas, functions or algorithms they implement. This means that if someone copy pastes your code word for word they are infringing your copyright but if they write their own code that does the same function as yours they are fine.
I never said it was. But, I’m also not an investor. I’m just saying the kind of things that scare off investors. And this would be a big one.
What? The literal extermination of the human race is not enough to scare off investors.
Well, to be blunt, it depends. Would the eventual extermination of the human race cause them to lose money in the short term?
No, but if you were an investor, would you invest in a product that would make it so people can easiy recreate your other products so that they stop buying your other products? Ending humanity doesn’t scare them but making $0.75 less this year does
Have you seen the investment in fossil fuels. 😄
🤣😂🥲🙂😐😔🥺😭
Killing the entire species is absolutely less of a concern for investors than copyright violations.
At this point, I think they believe it’s a good indicator of potential. A way of saying just how awesome and magical and powerful the AI is.
Otherwise the “AI went off the rails and breached X companies servers” would also have been met with contempt and negatively impacted them.
I still can’t wrap my head around how this strategy (“buy our models, they are so powerful they might kill all humans”) would work in their favor, apart from one thing: restrictions would hurt Chinese models probably more than themselves. But I find it very unlikely that characters like Altman or Amodei would be capable of playing that kind of 4d chess. It’s a weird flex
They suck far too much at the moment.
Is there a local LLM I can run on an 8-10th gen i5 with 16GB RAM?
With an iGPU results are going to be very slow. Most promising things I have heard of so far is Mixture of Experts type models, if you have an 8GB card you might be able to run Qwen 3.8-35B-A3B-MoE which I think is the most capable for that hardware.
There are websites that can suggest a few for your specific hardware, I assume some are vibecoded and are only occasionally updated to the latest models, so take it as you will. See this Lemming’s comment. And [email protected] is where I think most of the discussion around new development with Local LLMs happens here on Lemmy.
Yes, quite a few, but it depends on what you’re trying to do with them. Any ideas?
Assist with writing letters, home assistant code, light powrshell scripting.
Edit: helping segment my network
That should be well within reach of a local LLM.
If you’ve got a discrete GPU with sufficient VRAM, something like Ornith running on PolyStrata could be worth a shot. Try a Q3 size.
https://huggingface.co/bartowski/Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B-GGUF
https://github.com/VecSzn/PolyStrata
Hell, Tiny Ling 3 might be able to do it. Try a Q6.
https://huggingface.co/bartowski/Ling-3.0-tiny-GGUF
Another good option is Qwen3.5-9B. I’d try a Q4 or Q5.
Whichever model you choose, I’d also suggest a few MCP servers to give it access to reliable information rather than rely entirely on its internal knowledge.
- Microsoft Learn MCP: Official PowerShell, Windows and network documentation. Will help with your scripting stuff.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/training/support/mcp
- Exa MCP: Web search for current technical information, Home Assistant documentation and code examples.
https://github.com/exa-labs/exa-mcp-server
- Filesystem MCP: Allows the model to examine your existing scripts and configuration files rather than guess what you’ve got.
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers/tree/main/src/filesystem
If you’re actually running Home Assistant, its official MCP server is worth a look too.
https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/mcp_server/
I’d start with Microsoft Learn and Exa, then add the others as needed. You’ll need an MCP-capable client (which pretty much all of them are now - eg: llama.cpp web ui, OpenWebUI, Light Local Chat etc), and I’d keep file access read-only initially.
I’d personally use McProxy instead of adding MCPs singularly, but I fear I’m already over loading you with information.
EDIT: The PolyStrata recommendation assumes you have a discrete GPU with sufficient VRAM (unclear if you do?). If not, disregard Ornith and try Tiny Ling 3 Q6 or Qwen3.5-9B with ik_llama.cpp instead.
https://github.com/ikawrakow/ik_llama.cpp
Either way, both smaller models should be capable of the tasks you’ve described, particularly with access to the right documentation. Just verify any network or firewall changes before applying them.
They are the way to go, but hardware pricing makes it cost-prohibitive to match frontier capabilities, which makes decomp and recomp difficult. Or rather, they require more skill and take longer, introducing some barriers against the current floodgates being flung open.
We all know the eye-watering prices GPUs and RAM cost now, to say nothing of Unified Memory devices like the Strix. Most people just don’t have a spare $10K to throw at an inference box that can run (say) a 300B model at interactive (not batch) speeds.
Coming at this from another angle tho, I note that according to Steam stats, the most popular GPUs are in the 8GB and 16GB range…which is smack bang in the VRAM range of what a good MoE (say, Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B) runs on (for 8GB) or arguably the best local dense coder (Qwen 3.8 27B) can live at. Which leaves us with a capable assistant and a capable coder.
I think there’s probably room for LLM improvement in the 8–16GB range too…and given that most consumer PCs and laptops live there, I’m sanguine the open-weight devs might make it happen.
But I also suspect the gatekeeping of high-end capacities is intentional.
We’re probably not going to have the ability to vibe code Mario into Elden Ring again…not without significantly more skill. Dunno.
Well that was an impressive speed run to enshitifcation. What kind of sensorship is queued up next?
This comment has been flagged for reason
[]. You may revert this conversation to an earlier point or switch to a non-american model
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.
Too late… the genie is out of the bottle now! All those corporate software copyright moats are being attacked, and there’s nothing they can do about it, lmao. Set it all free :)
Legislators could just put all blame on consumers, you know? They could make you responsible for each and every generation and declare open weight a threat to national security. This won‘t solve itself in our favor. The oligarchs hold way too much power already.
And? Let’em.
And we won’t listen.
They hurt us,
They are evil.
The only thing we have to fear,
Is dieing before they do.
This our world, not their’s.
Couldn’t come at a better time. Enshittification has hit the software industry hard. The argument for captialism is that it makes the best product at the lowest price. However the recent reality is that capitalism makes the worst product for the highest price.
Burn it all down.
