- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Brandon Thomas, developer of ArtCraft, a suite of open-source creative tools meant to replicate Adobe applications for free, has now announced apps to replace Microsoft Office tools such as Excel, PowerPoint, and Word, respectively, named GridCraft, DeckCraft, and WordCraft, that are created with Claude. Thomas has shared his new clones to ArtCraft GitHub, making them free for all to download.
You must log in or register to comment.
Massive nothing burger, those sloppy clones are fucking terrible in production, and dont believe me, look it up yourself.
Id love for it to be really of substantial value as it is now though.
Great, more slop
Yeah, why would you waste time with these instead of Gimp, OpenOffice, etc? Except for the clicks.
I agree, then I remember those infuriating pricks asking “Can I draw a circle in GIMP yet?” in every thread about updates. The slop is for those people.
You’ve obviously never used Photoshop or GIMP because if you have then you would immediately understand why. GIMP is a completely different experience, and its UX is far inferior to Photoshop. On top of that, anybody who is used to the workflow in Photoshop will have a very steep learning curve using GIMP.
Believe it or not, but most people just want a tool that works for what they’re trying to do. These apps have some bugs and rough edges still, but they’re very much usable and make it trivial to switch for anybody who’s used to Photoshop.
The venn diagram of what GIMP does and what Photoshop does isn’t the singular circle people assume. I, too, loathed my time with GIMP wondering how it ever got so popular in the OSS community, but then you realize it’s kind of all they have so of course they’ll support it no matter what.
I haven’t used it in years and based on that experience, I’m not rushing to try it again anytime soon. The UI felt like a UX designer’s prank on the world.
Yeah, these are very different tools. And yeah UX in GIMP is something else.
I’ve been using the recent versions of GIMP and it’s surprisingly usable. Of course tools are a bit different and in different places compared to Photoshop, but that goes for any software.
Yeah, you should definitely try using it again - especially since the big 3.0 release.
Menus and tool names/functions still do not map perfectly onto Photoshop’s (it is its own thing after all, so why should it?), but it is a serious and sophisticated piece of software. Easily adequate for my professional reproduction work.
I switched to it from Photoshop two or three years ago and had to spend a few hours watching tutorials and reading the manual to make the transition. But now there is hardly anything I can’t do in GIMP at least as fast, easily and reliably as I could in Photoshop.
Yeah, there are already good alternatives for the office package. I don’t see why anyone would use a slop version instead of them.
I can’t say anything about Photoshop and autodesk since I don’t use them.
Is OpenOffice still maintained?
Is OpenOffice still maintained?
The descendant of it called LibreOffice has been the well-maintained thing to use for the last 15 years.
about OpenOffice:
Sadly something called OpenOffice is also sort-of still maintained but should not be used under any circumstances. It has basically been a zombie project since Oracle bought Sun Microsystems in 2010 and (as the Apache OpenOffice wikipedia article explains) is not safe to use:
Difficulties maintaining a sufficient number of active developers and code contributors to keep the project viable have persisted for several years. This has led to persistent problems providing timely fixes to security vulnerabilities since 2015. In March 2026, the Apache Security Team raised OpenOffice’s security risk status to “red” due to unfixed vulnerabilities over 365 days old.
There is a somewhat complicated history about why the fork from the old
OpenOffice.orgto LibreOffice was necessary and how/why something else called “Apache OpenOffice” came to exist after the fork; the tldr is that Larry Ellison is a real-life comic book villain so his companies strive to do the worst thing possible at every turn.Yeah, I know about LibreOffice as I use it myself. That’s why I was wondering why OpenOffice was brought up.
i assume this person is making a statement more than anything. but gimp is not an adobe alternative. affinity is but not gimp. but since this is an open source commjnity i should point out affinity is not open source
It’s very obviously better to have open tools than closed ones. This whole screeching about slop is both incredibly tiresome and irrational in the extreme. These are new tools that make software development easier, people are making useful things with them, and they’re helping people move off proprietary software. That’s obviously a net positive.
If you don’t like the tools people are using go ahead and make something comparable by hand, except we both know that you can’t. So, you’re adding nothing constructive to the discussion here.
LibreOffice?
For an office suite LibreOffice is fine, although compatibility with MS Office is still spotty. But for graphics there really aren’t drop in replacements for Adobe apps right now.
At the end of the day, I don’t really care what tools software is made with. Either it works well or it doesn’t. You can make quality projects using LLMs and you can make really shitty software without them. The deciding factor in both cases is skill ans knowledge of the developer building the app.
LibreOffice is fine, although compatibility with MS Office is still spotty
Have you seen anyone claiming that this brand-new vibe-coded thing has better compatibility (and/or feature parity) with the proprietary applications it claims to replace than the mature free software solutions currently do?
I would be surprised if it actually does anytime soon.
It’s very obviously better to have open tools than closed ones.
I agree, if it works well and it’s freely licensed it’s a good thing. It isn’t clear how well this actually works though, and the fact that the author is disparaging existing free software solutions to advertise his business selling genAI tokens is not a good indicator.
This whole screeching about slop is both incredibly tiresome and irrational in the extreme. These are new tools that make software development easier […]
It’s made it so easy that there is currently a deluge new projects which often seem plausible at first but mostly turn out to actually be garbage upon closer inspection.
It’s irrational not to be skeptical of a two-week-old project claiming to be ready (or “almost” ready, lmao) to replace multiple 30-year-old suites of software.
Let me know if I’m mistaken, and anyone other than the author tries it and credibly claims that this thing is actually a better (in any way whatsoever) replacement for MS Office than LibreOffice is.
Have you seen anyone claiming that this brand-new vibe-coded thing has better compatibility (and/or feature parity) with the proprietary applications it claims to replace than the mature free software solutions currently do?
Given that people are literally just reverse engineering these applications by having the LLM decompile it and observe what it does in memory, yeah I expect these will be compatible much faster than manual efforts. I did something similar recently where I had an LLM figure out the proprietary format for the way my Nikon camera stores RAW files. There’s currently no open source implementation for it, and now I can read them using my own library. So, something that used to be a herculean effort before, is something you can now do in a few days using an LLM.
I haven’t played with the Office stuff, but I am using his PhotoCraft and LightCraft, and they work fine for what I need. I can process my photos using completely open source tools now that have a UX I’m used to. Yet, I’m aware that LightTable exists, and I’ve tried using it, and it was not a great experience. Given how fresh these projects are, it’s absolutely incredible to me. And with LLMs it’s possible for me to fix whatever issues I have with the app myself. The reality is that most people don’t really need to do anything incredibly complex with these tools. So, if they do what you need you have an app you can keep using indefinitely. The hard part has always been to build out the initial features and the UX which was just too hard to do by hand.
It’s made it so easy that there is currently a deluge new projects which often seem plausible at first but mostly turn out to actually be garbage upon closer inspection.
You’re saying this as if NPM ecosystem didn’t exist before LLMs. The reality is that there has always been a ton of garbage projects. Over time people gravitate towards projects that actually work and are useful to them. And this isn’t hard problem people keep making it out to be. You look at the number of stars a project has, how long it’s been developed, how many users it has, and so on. This gives you an idea of whether it has legs or not. I’ll certainly trade having to rely on proprietary software for the problem of having too many open source options.
It’s irrational not to be skeptical of a two-week-old project claiming to be ready (or “almost” ready, lmao) to replace multiple 30-year-old suites of software.
Seems to me that the rational thing is to try the project, see if it does what you need and decide based on that. But that’s just me.
people are literally just reverse engineering these applications by having the LLM decompile it and observe what it does
Have you seen the creators of this particular project claim anywhere that they decompiled anything? I’ve seen several commenters claiming that but I think they’re incorrectly assuming that that’s what they did.
For one thing, decompiling and recompiling Adobe or Microsoft code would surely be viewed as copyright infringement if there isn’t a clearly-documented “cleanrooming” process in the middle (having an LLM write a spec (in English) from the decompiled code, and having another session without access to the copyrighted code write new code from that spec - a fun LARP many people are doing lately).
But also, if they were actually doing that then I’d expect more feature parity than I’ve seen in the few youtube videos I’ve skimmed through showing these apps. I’m too lazy to find the link now but I watched one comparing PhotoCraft to Photoshop, and one example was that PhotoCraft’s Levels diagram is very primitive in comparison to Adobe’s (or to GIMP’s for that matter).
I did something similar recently where I had an LLM figure out the proprietary format for the way my Nikon camera stores RAW files. There’s currently no open source implementation for it, and now I can read them using my own library. So, something that used to be a herculean effort before, is something you can now do in a few days using an LLM.
Congratulations, that’s awesome (and I don’t doubt it). But implementing a RAW format is a lot easier than re-implementing all of the Photoshop features which are required to be able to say (honestly, a least) “this has .PSD file format compatibility” without a long list of caveats.
I am using his PhotoCraft and LightCraft, and they work fine for what I need. I can process my photos using completely open source tools now that have a UX I’m used to.
I am curious how much you’ve actually used it. Eg, can you confirm what I saw on youtube showing the Levels adjustment dialog lacking most of the features found in Photoshop’s and GIMP’s? (Is that still the case in the current version?)
And have you noticed it having compatibility with (or at least some support for) any modern PSD file format features which GIMP lacks?
You’re saying this as if NPM ecosystem didn’t exist before LLMs.
yes there was a lot of crap before 😭 but don’t you agree it’s 1000x worse now?
You look at the number of stars a project has, how long it’s been developed, how many users it has, and so on. This gives you an idea of whether it has legs or not.
This project has a lot of stars but only because it just got a ton of clickbait press grossly exaggerating its completeness. I assume the vast majority of the stars are from people who have not tried running it. How long it’s been developed is… two weeks, as of today. How many users? It’s far too soon to say.
I’ll certainly trade having to rely on proprietary software for the problem of having too many open source options.
I agree with you here! But I’m assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this particular one is not likely to ever become a particularly good option.
Given how close the project matches the original, I have a hard time imagining this could’ve been done without examining how the original functions. And whether it’s copyright infringement or not is of little interest to me since I view copyrights as being inherently harmful. However, since the implementation is using a different language, that does make the implementation itself a clean room one.
Ultimately, it’s a moot point whether they decompiled or wrote a spec from scratch though. What matters is that the apps work and it mimics what Adobe ones do sufficiently well to be useful.
And it still takes time to add features using LLMs. It’s not magic, and I’m more amazed how much they managed to add already rather than it not having parity yet.
Reimplementing Photoshop is obviously a much bigger effort, but I’m just using that as an illustration that LLMs are pretty good at reverse engineering work. Which makes it plausible to me that they could get a lot of the features figured out quickly.
I’m not a designer, so my needs are meagre. I want layers, to be able to select objects, add text, do color correction, and so on. Both GIMP and Photoshop are huge, so I haven’t had a chance to explore the depths. All I can say is that I was able to get the things I normally do without any real friction. It does appear to work with PSDs fairly well, but again I don’t have really complex ones because I use the tool in an amateur way to begin with.
What I can definitively say is that the UX is strictly superior to GIMP. Doing stuff like text manipulation like changing size or selecting fonts has always been a pain in GIMP, and as much as I want to like it, I find it painful to use. Photocraft apes Photoshop UX which I find to be superior. So, the feature parity isn’t really the stumbling point for me, it’s the UX.
But that’s my whole point here, most people are in the same boat as me. They do a few specific things with a tool, and if those things work then the tool solves the problem.
How long it’s been developed is… two weeks, as of today. How many users? It’s far too soon to say.
But this is something that’ll sort itself naturally over the coming months. If the developer stays active and continues working on it, then it’ll keep getting better. If they abandon it and move on then it’ll either die or somebody else picks it up. But it is in a fairly usable state as is from my experience, and I’d argue a lot of the hard work has already been done. So, we’ll have to just wait and see what happens with it.
Another point to mention though, is that it is becoming viable to maintain your own tools now. For example, if Photocraft got abandoned. It works well enough for me, and I could have an LLM fix any gaps in the way I’m using it. I don’t have to maintain a general tool that everyone can use, I can just have one that does what I need.
The barrier before was that you had to spend a lot of time to figure out how any one app works to make meaningful changes to it. And you only have so much time in a day, so you can’t really take ownership of a bunch of tools like that. But with LLMs it is becoming much more practical. Grab an open source app, adopt it to work the way you want, and just keep using it. If you ever need new features, you just have the LLM add them in for you.
And if we get to the point where all this stuff can be done using local models, then we really could see Stallman’s vision for GNU become a reality. Regular people, who aren’t developers, could use fully open source stacks, and they could modify software to work exactly the way they want. If we’re lucky this might kill closed source software entirely in the long run.
Well, if thanks to this we finally get open office to figure whatever tricks MS used to get documents to render fully correctly ONLY in office, consider me in.
I don’t understand why anyone is interested in using these. They simply look like the real thing. There is nothing indicating they work remotely the same under the hood.
If you were to generate a bug for bug copy that would be one thing, this is just a doppelganger.
Were it made with Ai or not, its just not something that has any real value.
Have you tried it to say that it just looks like the real thing and that it doesn’t work the same?
It isnt even written in the same language. It won’t be a bug for bug copy. Just slop.
I don’t need to buy the Temu knockoff to know it’ll be s shitty knockoff that looks good on the storefront.
Buy?
Decompilations do work the same under the hood.
I don’t think any decompiling was involved here; if it was, Adobe and Microsoft would have DMCA’d it off of github already.
I don’t think this is going to amount to anything; the rate he’s popping these out suggest he’s more motivated by making a point and/or prestige than getting something useful at the end, and turning these enormous codebases nobody has any intuition for into something maintainable is going to be grueling work that will make them wish they started from scratch. But if we imagine that this will go somewhere:
Wouldn’t that be bad for open source in the long run?
Businesses, certainly not the larger ones, are not going to touch this for various reasons. So while Adobe and Microsoft may take a hit, it’s not going to fundamentally harm their business models. Students, on the other hand, can’t afford the real thing. If that leads to them to alternatives like LibreOffice, GIMP, or Krita, then when they end up in the workforce, there’s going to be at least some pressure to let them use the tools they’re used to. In fact, I use LibreOffice at work. But if they can have something that looks and feels exactly like Adobe’s and Microsoft’s products, they’ll feel right at home with the real thing at work.
I love it! Big tech wants control of everything. They put out AI, that they can’t control, and we have open source models breathing down their necks. (Imo the worst case scenario isn’t AI wiping us out but being entirely subservient and in control of the psycho pdf billionaires)
And now AI is breaking down closed software moats. I really hope this becomes a trend. And it’s not like they can get frontier the AI labs to stop this, cos that wouldn’t stop everyone else.
Also imagine all the crap analytics and spyware all these closed source software products have in them. Let’s decompile every single one and hang the companies with it. Let’s reverse engineer every “smart car” software and disable all connectivity. Let’s make any IoT device work with Home Assistant. Let’s drive John Deer into bankruptcy.
I’d take open source AI code any day over adobe or amazon or meta’s shit.
Let’s reverse engineer every “smart car” software and disable all connectivity.
You’d still need hardware access to install that software, presumably? Surely it would break some sort of warrant. Also, as much as I despise connectivity in smart cars, I’m not sure I’m comfortable having AI code injected into my car. Then again, the car companies are surely already injecting AI slop into every single new car these days… Maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all. It’s rough, but we gotta fight slop with slop.
Even with access to the car hardware would it be impossible to just flash a new firmware onto it, not without some major security flaw in their bootloader or leaked keys to sign the new firmware. It is all locked down tightly.
FOSS clones for software just to work on closed overengineered standards is stupid. We have had markdown for decades but still prefer oblong zip-xml files for writing rich text and slides!? Absurd.
Excel is the only MS Office product that makes sense to exist, and thus carries the brand to dominance largely by itself. Docs and slides have already been solved; I wish devs just focused on making the perfect Excel clone and abandon looking at all other MSOffice programs.
!["cat looks inside" meme template: "[...]", "looks inside", "slop"](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/0cbd3492-56c9-4d38-9555-d561d93411c3.png)
Should this be allowed here in [email protected]?
It is obviously built using Claude,
but it is not (as I first thought) a project that started a month ago - the first commit in the current repo is from a month ago but it refers to their previous (“multi-hundred GB” lol) git repo. So this is actually built on something with history going back to before the vibe coding era.(edit: actually i take it back, i see now photocraft started on september 30 and the commit message on the second commit is “one-shot” 🫠)I see the project lead’s two most recent posts on the site formerly known as twitter are disparaging LibreOffice and Gimp and Kdenlive.
Until yesterday this part was under a “fair source” (meaning not open source) license but now it has been relicensed MIT + Apache 🤔
Have you actually tried any of these 12 apps yet, OP? Are they any good, or are they just marketing for a service reselling genAI tokens?
I’ve used the photoshop clone, I’m not a digital artist so I don’t really know much, but it worked ok. I’m sure with time it’ll get better. I’m also using the word craft one and this one works no issues at all. Also on this one I don’t really do a lot of docs but I did some stuff on it and it worked fine
No I haven’t tried any of these 12 apps, I am perfectly happy with Gimp, affinity photo and LibreOffice. I posted this because for one, the opensource community three days ago had a fervent conversation about photocraft, the same developer. Secondly, as written in the rules of the community it says “feel free to ask questions and share news, and interesting stuff.”
I am not promoting anything AI, in fact I hate the direction it is going in and the threat it poses to real developers. That said, there is clearly a plenty of schadenfreude that comes from this, nobody can’t deny its sweet to extend the middle finger to these megacorps.
Not sure where you get the idea that I posted this as a marketing ploy reselling genAI tokens?
Not sure where you get the idea that I posted this as a marketing ploy reselling genAI tokens?
Sorry if it seems like I meant to imply that that was your intention; i did look at your profile before asking and saw that you aren’t a spammer :)
However, it seems like reselling tokens is the primary business model of the company which has presumably just spent a significant amount of dollars worth of tokens to vibe code this suite of software.
Whether they have actually produced a dozen useful apps which many people will actually use, or merely made something which is just barely functional enough to get a bunch of free marketing hype, is not yet clear to me. They have certainly succeeded in getting a lot of press, though.
The second twitter one is infuriating
“Come on, y’all know this” is the best they could come up with to argue that their slopware is better than these long established huge open source projects that have been worked on for decades as opposed to a week
Honestly there is a good chance the LLM ripped code from the long standing projects to cut corners.
I’d be willing to bet that it’s impossible it could have done it any other way.
looks inside
slop
To be fair you’d get more or less the same result if you looked inside any modern microsoft product, and they’d ask you to pay for the privilege on top…
(Of course replacing slop with different flavour slop, even if it’s cheaper, doesn’t accomplish much; better to use properly developed software like LibreOffice.)
They could go straight to the nuclear stuff and make a liberated version of Oracle’s VirtualBox. Would become as popular as Robin Hood.
Looking forward for the coming months to see if any of these programs can have all the bugs ironed out
Spoiler alert: They won’t.
Okay. Do Unigraphics NX. I would totally use that.
This is good and bad at the same time…
isn’t Artcraft’s products vide coded?
and yep they are
ngl its impressive Claude can replicate programsThe question for me is how this affects the copyright discussion. Microsoft and Adobe have been happy to use and promote AI which has stolen the work of others. When they go after Artcraft, and I’m sure they will, how do they manage to not look like the huge hypocrites they are?
I think youre right, theyll try. Though for ‘managing’, I don’t think that will matter. They don’t really need to.
The point of being a legislative giant is that your lawyers use whatever angle will work on a technicality for whatever profit goal you’re trying to achieve. Often throwing bullshit arguments one after another, to drown your opposition in paperwork, burden of proof or legal fees until they’re forced to cave just to minimise losses.
Companies are abstract entities that don’t have any actual principles of copyright to be hypocritical about, and the principles of the many people within them are scarcely relevant at scale as their jobs are dependant on compliance to rules imposed above them.
The owners of these companies won’t have to manage anything, because they’re insulated from consequence and the company is treated as a separate entity, for some reason.
I mean, the problem isn’t that they’ll look like hypocrites…
The problem is that the bullshit they spout can be used against them in court.
For instance, some of these companies are on trial for using copyrighted works for training. One could claim that the training of a model is fair use. One of the criteria for establishing fair use, is that it doesn’t damage the market for the original work.
But their email claim they think LLMs can effectively damage the creators of the content they use, and they publicly repeated over and over how their AIs will make everyone unemployed.
Now they could say that they bullshitted the public, but then MSFT is a public corp, so that might be considered market manipulation? And indeed Microsoft has walked that back earlier than most others.
This is quite literally one of the best things of this fucking century. Imagine what is going to happen to these mother fuckers and their bottom line. They have been a knife in Linux’ side for decades holding so many people from switching and now look at this. Your love or hate towards AI right now actually doesn’t matter, because the end result is way greater than it. I’m rejoicing hard over this
Lots of anti-AI sentiments in here and I get that, but I’d like to discuss the implications here, cause this is actually somewhat revolutionary.
If I can just take any software and reverse-engineer it or recreate it to a precision that is practically indistinguishable from the original (not saying it really is in this case, but for the sake of discussion) and I then have copyright over that copy, doesn’t that turn things on it’s head? Doesn’t that make software essentially worthless? Any software you sell someone, they can recreate and distribute for free, legally (presumably). I suppose we’ve yet to see if this will really turn out to be legal, but it’s hard to argue how this is illegal, I would say - how is this different than a human closely studying Microsoft Word and “simply” writing their own version of the same program?
I’m not sure if this is good or bad honestly, but it sure is interesting. Anyone else have thoughts around how this affects the worth of software?
Hmmm… So if someone used CoPilot, which is owned and operated by Microsoft, to copy something Microsoft owns, like Office, does that mean that no copyright infringement actually occurred, because Microsoft can’t infringe on their own copyright?
It seems there may even be an argument that an agent of Microsoft willingly released that code.
You don’t even need to use Microsoft’s AI, you can use any AI you want that is capable enough for the task.
From a technical perspective, yes. I was looking at it from an angle where the company has released their own code via an agent they control. Sort of like calling Microsoft support and asking “hey, can you send me the source code for Office please?”
In broad terms this is already covered.
If you made an exact clone of Photoshop by hand you’d get sued into oblivion, and that would be effective because of the barrier to entry ( in time and resources ) you’d need to get to that point.
Meaning you’d be betting all that upfront effort/resource on the a major corporation either not caring, or not being able to mount a reasonable litigation strategy.
Not many actors would be willing to risk that.
The difference here is that the barrier is now much lower and it tangles up a whole bunch of other potential issues around the legality of vibe code.
Regardless of how it shakes out it will almost certainly be a set of rules that only really apply to the peasants.
"If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.”
If you made an exact clone of Photoshop
Yes but you wouldn’t actually need to make your clone very different for the copyright to be entirely different and then surely you wouldn’t get sued? And I think in this case, it is definitely sufficiently different, it’s a completely different tech stack and while the UI is similar, it’s probably not identical (I haven’t checked though). But also you can’t really copyright UI beyond the design itself, the functionality is free game as far as I understand.
Also worth remembering that different countries may have different stances on this. I’m curious how the EU might handle it.
you can’t really copyright UI beyond the design itself, the functionality is free game as far as I understand.
It’s not just copyright. There are also patents to worry about. Those cover a specific process, like “click here, and the code selects all regions matching the same color (±5%)”. If you make an exact copy, surely you’ve violated some patents.
Sure, patent protections don’t last as long as copyright, and they can be defeated if you prove that it’s “obvious” or can show prior art, but it’s still an expensive legal battle against a megacorp. A vibe coder will likely fold at the first cease and desist.
There may never be a need to challenge Adobe’s patent lawyers in court.
This person used AI to clone commercial software, and then released the cloned software. Imagine instead someone developed an AI that could clone most commercial software…and then they simply published the AI open source. Now, anyone can download a tool that can clone software like Photoshop. They can clone Photoshop on their own computer, and that cloned copy never needs to be distributed anywhere.
Imagine Adobe trying to go after people that did that. It would be like trying to go after people that violate a patent for some device that they build in their garage, only use personally, and never sell. Could you in theory go after home tinkerers for patent infringement? Sure. But in practice it’s impossible to do at scale. Adobe will never even be able to find the people to sue.
Yes but you wouldn’t actually need to make your clone very different for the copyright to be entirely different and then surely you wouldn’t get sued?
Are you confident enough to bet 6-12 months of dev time and resources(possibly lawyer consultation fees) on that assumption ? because up until recently that’s what someone would need to do to find out.
It might be fine, but the threat of litigation is a part of the deterrent.
But also you can’t really copyright UI beyond the design itself, the functionality is free game as far as I understand.
As with all of these things, it’s region specific.
However, game mechanic patents and copyrights exists and are litigated regularly.
I do think some implications not many people think about is how companies will combat this. Of course there’s copyright and patents, though I’m not sure how all that will pan out.
A more impactful implication, in my mind, is this will create a larger push to move applications and/or games to be online only and not distribute any version of the application; since, as far what I can imagine, that is the best and potentially only way to combat this. Just don’t give people the compiled programs. Which sucks.
This largely stemmed from modding games together and expanding the capabilities of modding, but I think this may seriously harm modding by preventing it from even happening on new games, which does scare me as a modder.
Granted, we sorta had this already - many Godot and Unity games were relatively easy to decompile, and many popular games are still released using those engines. Though, most, if not all, triple A games have moved away from Unity, if there even were that many to begin with. And that may be because of the fact that Unity games are easy to decompile.
This is all guessing, but I do suspect you’ll see the largest impacts of this in triple A games and large consumer-oriented software; commercial-only software may not see as much impact due to security, liability, and licensing implications of using (potentially unsupported) clones.
I think this may seriously harm modding by preventing it from even happening on new games, which does scare me as a modder.
I did think about games too and I was about to use it as an example, but as software, I think games are actually much harder to legally copy and distribute, because so much of a game is its art assets. Sure you can copy the software no problem, but you can’t really copy the artistic expression of the game. You can’t copy Hades and keep the great illustrations and animations. You couldn’t keep the music or voice acting. All of that would be copyright infringement.
So games are actually somewhat legally protected still, I’d say, basically because they contain much more art and creativity than most other programs.
Yes. It makes software worthless. People doubt these things but it’s done and set in stone already.
I’m an IP attorney. You don’t have copyright over the thing you created with AI as you describe it. Copyright applies only to a minimally original expression by a human at this time.
But that only strengthens the argument that software is worthless now - I can copy existing software with AI and it is public domain basically is what you’re saying? So again, I can make a copy and legally distribute it. How can anyone earn money on software in that world?
People have been earning money on free and open source software for decades. Vibecoding is still a ton of work and not everyone has the time or the capacity to do it. Also, add the sentimental element too. Some people still support others even though the can make the same software.
Doesn’t that make software essentially worthless?
Closed source will be worthless. Open source has already been out in the open and has been amazing. All software will become what it should have been all along and like Stalman wanted it, free and open source.
I hope you’re right! Not that I think anyone can predict where this will lead at this time.
ArtCraft isn’t a Photshop clone in any sense of the word and it looks like no onr actually tried it. It’s a bunch of cobbled together AI tools. “Photoshop” is nothibg but AI prompted image generation and in-painting with Nano Banana (or other providers). It’s not reverse engineered photoshop. I spent parts of saturday getting it to work on local modals using Claude like apparently God intended, since I was pissed off that it was a rented service like everthing else in this fucking shit industry.
ArtCraft is an obviously hastily made piece of software that is intended to take Adobe Creative Cloud customers over to their cloud service.
If you want a Photoshop alternative you have Gimp and Krita. Those are well made pieces of software that isn’t vibe coded over a weekend.
AI isn’t revolutionary. It’s theft.
I refuse to discourage people from providing everyone free and open source alternatives. If you don’t like or want to try then don’t. If they are working at making it better then that’s great for us.
