Many game developers are reporting Claude's refusal to work on their own projects.
  • JasSmith@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3·
    1 day ago

    I tell Claude to use DeepSeek when it encounters a moral quandary. DeepSeek has no moral quandaries.

    I am particularly galled by the people who conducted the worst IP theft in history turning around and telling the little people not to do what they did. Either we’re cool with it or we’re not. Right now we’re letting the richest and most powerful people do whatever they like while we are all held to a different standard.

  • ☂️-@lemmy.mlEnglish
    7·
    2 days ago

    we will reverse engineer gta6 anyway. we are going to jailbreak your shit. the cat is out of the bag now, techbros. are they afraid of progress now?

  • Xerxos@lemmy.mlEnglish
    17·
    2 days ago

    What we are seeing is why we should not support closed models. The companies like OpenAI and Anthropic can change the rules of usage at any time they like and for any reason. Today it’s reverse engineering. Tomorrow who knows what.

    There was no official ruling from the courts that forced them to do this. This was just something they didn’t like.

    Remember that these are the companies that gave millions to Trump as a bribe for the inauguration.

  • Fandangalo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    421·
    3 days ago

    I’m a game designer, and the intent here is good. However, as outlined, there’s legitimate reasons to not block this sort of work. Additionally, game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, for good reason. Mechanics are generally fair game, but the treatment around them has copyrighted assets. I don’t want an ecosystem where game mechanics were copyrighted.

      • Fandangalo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        3 days ago

        You can usually patent hardware patterns. It’s very difficult to be successful in court about gameplay mechanics themselves. Nintendo lost their lawsuits.

        • thingsiplay@lemmy.mlEnglish
          4·
          3 days ago

          I’m not arguing that (and know about the Palworld case off course). What I argue is, that most companies big or small want to avoid going to court, and fight (possibly years) over patents. Or avoid getting sued if they use patented mechanics. Just like with the situation of emulators, it doesn’t matter if the developers are right or wrong, they fear going to court against Nintendo.

          Now in case of Palword I have to say, bravo. Wish more had the courage (and money!) to fight Nintendo. It would make gaming better, because I hate game mechanics being patented.

          • Fandangalo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            3 days ago

            To be fair to you, they needed a lot of resources to fight. They hit it big, which caught Nintendo’s attention. It’s suffering from success, but I agree broadly.

      • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        3 days ago

        I think the parenting is very controversial and not altogether enforceable. I don’t know of anything that went to court over it, most of the patents are incredibly vague.

        • SaucySnake@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          3 days ago

          Nintendo famously sued Palworld over throwing balls to capture monsters and using them in battle. They had a lot of claims thrown out but the suit is still ongoing apparently.

          • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            3 days ago

            Japans laws are a lot more intense about this. The only reason this happened is because both companies were Japanese, and most of it was still thrown out.

        • thingsiplay@lemmy.mlEnglish
          3·
          3 days ago

          Exactly why this is still a problem. There are patents of game mechanics that prevented other devs to implement them, because they do not want to go to court or fear they could lose in a court. The Nemesis system is such an example often brought up in discussions like these. Or the ability to catch a Pokemon with the Pokeball in the way Nintendo does, and riding/flying with a monster are also patented. And on that note, I think Nintendo lost the case with the riding or with the catch mechanic, I don’t remember details.

          Game mechanics being patented is enforceable as far as I know, but only if the patent is in that country and is valid (validity can change even after it was granted, but that is not common). The point is, if valid or not, most companies just stop using those game mechanics out of fear. And that still holding back innovation.

  • heavy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    9·
    3 days ago

    That’s so funny that the thing that recreates stolen content is being modified not to do it, it seems almost existential. Wouldn’t that be one less reason to use LLMs at all? Good for Antrhopic I guess, but I’m sure they’ll let people with more money do it or something.

  • rbb36@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    3 days ago

    The machines of the oligarchs are not neutral to the oligarchy.

    The majority are not in a position to understand that.

    This is as dangerous, and more imminent, than runaway AGI.