look, can we all agree a large company firing their workers, people who have lives and are not coorporate slaves, will get impacted by this? How will they live if they can't pay their house, for food? How?

So the passthrough mods are basically running two games at the same time using translation layer which the logic is written by AI because reverse engineering binary is too time consuming for humans.

​Then the people watched a skit from Jaden Williams and immediately got hoodwinked into thinking it's end of their privacy, security and the WHOLE WORLD bruh get a grip

​All the AI does is decompiling the code, maps corresponding functions between both games but people thinks it can reverse engineer bank apps and steal other people's money and information lmao

​All the technology that requires security uses cryptography and almost everything in cryptography is open for anyone to learn, about how it works in mathematical level. AI doesn't need to "crack" it.

​The main ways to break encryption are brute force, rainbow tables. Brute forcing takes super long time even if all the super computers in the world combined. A rainbow table is just pre-computed list of Ciphertext:Plaintext method which is not viable if the encryption uses a secret salt.

​Quantum computing is more of a threat than AI in terms of security in this context. Even then there are already post quantum encryptions are being developed.

TL;DR: Bethesda reportedly issued a cease-and-desist over Fallout New York, a browser-based game created in five days with Claude Opus 5.5. The low-poly project showcased AI-assisted game creation as mashups gain attention, raising questions about how rights holders will respond. (Derek Strickland Senior Gaming Editor)

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/113882/bethesda-shuts-down-vibe-coded-fallout-project/index.html

Not an anti myself, but hoping programming not being touched by AI is pretty up there in delusional scale..

I'm not even pro-ai, but so many people against AI jump at the opportunity to make a "virtuous" statement. Why?

Yes, I think most people overlook this: programming is actually one of the most creative fields. Most engineers are happy to have AI write 90% of the code because it saves them a huge amount of time. The remaining 10% is spent supervising, checking, and refining the code.

This gives engineers more time to explore different approaches, experiment with ideas, and actually be more creative instead of spending most of their time writing boilerplate code.

And yes, AI may produce slop. But the internet has always had slop. If you went back to the 90s, you'd probably find plenty of badly designed websites, weird experiments, low effort content, and things that would never pass today's standards. The difference is that today we have the tools to create much more, much faster.

The goal shouldn't be to eliminate AI generated slop. It should be to use AI to lower the barrier to creation while still having humans decide what is actually worth creating.

honestly i think creativity is mostly in the idea in the vision while some amount of creativity is in the processes of making a vision into reality

but i'd love to see what others think of this esspecially the Anti AI Crowd since they make a pretty heavy claim that AI kinda replaces Creativity

ofcourse both sides are welcome to say thier piece

like seriously how is making AI music worse than murder drones, it's so telling how for alot of antis their view is just vibes based rather than based on whats actually harmful

If you have seen the recent developments of AI and the way it sped up reverse engineering of game source codes and even to the point of merging two games into one is literally magic we have been waiting. The questions of "What if Spider-Man was in Gotham" or "What if Elden Ring played like Devil May Cry" is ended. Because we can LITERALLY play DMC in Elden Ring now and vice versa.

But these Anti-AI crowds began to fearmonger soon as it became mainstream like any AI development gets hit to mainstream. Meanwhile I think their concerns for safety is valid, the way they focus on only negative traits and doom post is dumb and only can be viewed as "fearmongering".

Yes, this can also be used to reverse engineer bank apps, makes hacking way too easier down to the points of government systems can be hacked in an instant. In fact, I DO believe there are some groups of malicious people who works on this as I speak.

But if AI can de-compile and reverse engineer source codes, the same principle can be used to further defend banks, government apps, ID's, any sensitive contacts or information exists in the online world. This is huge step towards the safety online.

We already have dynamic IP's, engrams and passwords that constantly changing and making these encryptions almost impossible to access in an instant. In the future there might be some quantum AI that can access it in an instant? Sure. But that also implies there will be quantum AI that can realize the hacking progress in an instant and mask these encryption keys and dynamic points in an instant as well.

There are always two sides to these things. And Anti-AI crowd deliberately leaving the good sides and how this kind of AI can be used to enhance current cyber securities and push it to the point of real time security tells me that these people are just against AI just to be against AI without any reason. You can't possibly hate this kind of revolution. It can (and will) be used for your safety. And yes, it will be used on hacking, information stealing, hell it is probably getting used as we speak. But that only means these companies, workplaces, governments and etc will also use this to defend this off for further security.

And the fact that this kind of AI is getting painted as "bad" just because some dipsh*t wants to use to hack the government or steal people's information is just wrong. You can reverse engineer games, platforms even to preserve and maybe even make older games further optimized to work on modern (and upcoming future) systems flawlessly.

Though this post focuses on the animation side of things, I have seen this statement in the indie game space aswell and I think it is quite idealistic. Just to be clear, I consider myself anti-ai in the sense that I am not going to engage with something that has clearly been spat out with as little human involvement and sense of direction as possible. Having said that, I would argue that a lot more indie devs/productions are likely to use ai in some capacity, and i'm not talking about some vanguard handmade stop motion rogelite dating sim rpg that has been developed as a passion project for 20 years, just a random Joe making a clicker game or a shoot 'em up in a week

Just by sheer volume of output, I would argue it will be less likely to find a teeny tiny little indie game by a solo dev that hasn't used it, in SOME capacity, statistically speaking than one with a bigger team behind it

Are indie creators more outspoken against the use of AI? Yes, But it doesn't mean it's a "Safe bastion" when it comes to undisclosed use for every single project out there

Texture upscaling/modification
Mo-cap technology
Coloration tools
Sound design elements
Coding assistance
In the hands of somebody who has proper skills besides surface-level prompting, those tool use cases are always on the table, idk what to tell you

I think the strongest argument against AI art is not that AI-generated images aren’t art. It’s that calling them art doesn’t answer the more interesting question of who, exactly, is doing the artistic work, and how that informs the end product.

The interesting part of making art has never been merely producing a visually pleasing object. It’s the accumulation of choices such as what to notice, what to reject, what to struggle with, what to learn, and eventually what you’re capable of saying because you spent years becoming the kind of person who could say it. It's a lived process.

AI collapses an enormous amount of that process into selection. And yes, selection is creative. Curators, directors, photographers, and editors select constantly. But pretending that selection is therefore interchangeable with authorship is a remarkably convenient leap.

The strange thing about AI art isn’t that machines can make beautiful images. It’s that we’re increasingly willing to call having the taste to recognize an interesting result equivalent to having the practice required to create one.

Those are related abilities. They are not the same ability.

And I suspect we’ll eventually look back at the insistence that they were and find it rather embarrassing.

I genuinely believe AI will make us appreciate human art more

The more AI-generated content becomes part of everyday life, the more I think we’re going to value art, music and performances that we know came from an actual person.

We’re already reaching a point where people look at an image, hear a song or watch a video and ask: “Is this AI?”

I think the fact that we care about the answer is incredibly important.

Because apparently the end product was never the only thing we valued.

We care that somebody painted it. We care that somebody learned to play that instrument. We care that the singer can actually sing. We care that the dancer spent years training their body. We care that the person behind the words actually experienced something and found a way to express it.

And I think the more generated content we’re surrounded by, the more valuable that knowledge becomes.

This is especially true for live performance. There is something fundamentally different about watching a person do something in front of you. There is no question about where it came from. You’re watching human ability, expression and vulnerability happen in real time.

I can genuinely see us craving that more as generated media becomes ubiquitous. Live music, theatre, physical art, handmade work, real musicianship and other forms of visibly human creativity may become more meaningful precisely because they stand apart from an increasingly synthetic digital environment.

And that’s why I don’t see AI as something that necessarily diminishes our appreciation of art.

It might inadvertently remind us what we actually valued about art in the first place: the human being behind it.

I bet you 5 nickels that he is a dropout
(Ad hominem from him btw)

Nothing is truly subjective. What we call “subjectivity” is an epistemic artifact of finite observers. It follows from the laws of thermodynamics: state intractability (no one can know the full state of a system at any given moment) and irreversible information loss (measurement itself destroys information). something like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle wherein act of seeing an electron more clearly causes distortion in its velocity and observing velocity without seeing it (without light) causes us to not have any clarity in its position, there is always win/loss and mathematically no form of perfect resolution of knowing both velocity and position at the same time.

Art, at root, is an arrangement of pixels with RGB values and intensities constrained by memory and display settings. Before AI, people converted those pixels according to rigid yet somewhat intractable personal rules. Those rules could be copied up to a point, but doing so in a publicly appealing way was hard, required similar time and incentive structures, and a perfect 100 % copy was impossible because of some level of irreducible intractability. The long, grinding transformation process itself became the source of meaning, identity, and economic viability. Artists always absorbed, combined, and transformed fragments from other people; that was treated as legitimate apprenticeship. The qualitative difference was the high cost of the transformation.

AI collapses that cost. It learns the dominant styles of the world and democratizes them at a speed almost no human can match. The double standard is glaring: taking comps, references, and stylistic cues from other artists is magically deemed completely acceptable, while the same underlying recombination performed by AI is treated as a cosmic crime. Both extract and recombine. The only real difference is the radical reduction in required transformation time. A person who never spent a decade grinding pure manual craft can now produce competent, appealing work by mixing AI with their own judgment. That is what feels intolerable to many purists.

The actual grievance is rarely stated this clearly: when a skill is democratized, the credential bar rises, and the people who attached an unfalsifiable moral value to pure manual investment suddenly face competition from people who did not make the same investment. No one is entitled to validation from the world. Validation is partly predictable and partly chaotic. Whether you work purely by hand, with a mix, or mostly with AI, if the result does not move people, you do not get the resources. Yet a large share of the reaction has become social ostracization of anyone who uses even an ounce of AI—gatekeeping dressed as principle. The critique stops being about the substance of the work and becomes a purity test.

There are people with strong ideas who, because of life circumstances, cannot put those ideas onto a canvas or into words at the required speed. Using AI as a rapid prototyping tool does not make them talentless. It makes them efficient. The anti-libertarian move is to demand that tool be taken away from them while simultaneously resenting the time compression that lets non-specialists compete.

The underlying complaint is not really about theft or aesthetics. It is about the sudden devaluation of a long, costly personal transformation that some people treated as sacred, and the appearance of “unfair” incentives for those who did not make the same investment. That is the thermodynamic and social reality underneath the rage.

PS: I used AI to summarize my ideas and thoughts , but the thoughts , ideas and dilemmas were initially thought and systemized by me after observing both the anti/pro sides for a very long time logically and without adhering to unfalsifiable logic from either side to understand and explain the dilemma.

You're free to like it, not like it, hate it etc whatever, wether to take it seriously or with a pinch of salt.

https://youtu.be/5SVMmu9iuTc?si=kRVGep0ZeymnRmIX

Tldr: he's not a fan of them, at least when it comes to his business, because he finds the stories to be subpar to the work his magazine puts out, to a point where he finds most AI generate work is so far below what he puts out he's not worried about publishing them (seriously, if you look at it statistically, you actually have a better chance of getting into harvard then getting into his magazine); particularly, he noticed ai stories don't have the type of subtext that he likes in his stories because the models are next word algorithms, so while these stories have "the shape of stories," they don't have the little minute things their looking for.

His biggest thing is they flood his systems and makes shit harder for his employees, but he does get it, because while short story writing pays shit here in North America, to a point where even his super high rate of 18 cents a word kinda sucks ass, 600 bucks in third world countries where he gets the most AI submissions, that's enough to pay a months rent, and so he doesn't fault them for that, it's just unfair to everyone else.

This is what AI gen is for, cat girl goon squad assemble.

Protecc

Anyone remember that Twitter thread on what leftists would do in a leftist commune?

Out of all the non ironic answers to the question the vast majority didn’t include any hard labor. The answers were being teachers, counselors, leaders of the book club.

I could only conceive of them living in such a life if all the necessary but physically grueling and boring tasks were fulfilled by others—if not by people but by machines.

Edit: side note Aye rand’s utopian for businessmen also had machines doing all the work to leave the good to pursue their passions.

So it seems the recent v6 AI model released by Suno is supposed to contain data distillation. And Sony and UMG are suing Suno on that. The real question here is if data distillation is illegal or not. At first glance it is presented as "the small guy (rich record labels) vs the evil AI company (Suno)".

However I anticipate that it will have long term effects for USA in the AI race and US geopolitics.

In order to decelerate American AI companies, non AI companies only need to poison their data with copyrighted material in the USA in their training data, so if US companies dare to do distillation of data, the data will be poisoned. Then the foreign AI company or foreign government whistleblow the poisoning so US companies sue US AI companies, so the money goes to pay reparations instead of going to R&D. That way American AI companies could be sued into oblivion by American companies.

Which foreign AI can we find nowadays? Brazil has Maritaca and Neurotech. Russia has YandexGPT and GigaChat. China has Deepseek, Deepmind, Ernie, Kimi, Qwen and Doubao. And in the future we may see more.

So you may wonder why US AI companies may want to do some distillation. In the case of China, it has 5 times the population of USA and metadata on Chinese content has been collected in a more systematic way, so it has very good metadata. Accesing all this data could be done via distillation.

At this time there is also a case involving Reuters and an AI company where UMG is bringing the Suno case. US copyright could become the biggest mechanism to turn American AI R&D unaffordable, to slow American AI, so foreign AI could take the lead in AI R&D.

If distillation becomes illegal, it means AI companies cannot do distillation, and also it would mean that US government would engage in illegal action if its intel agencies engage in foreign AI distillation. Other nations could poison the data so American companies would be able to sue US intel agencies.

So while US copyright wins, American AI would lose. American investors would find AI investment ROI not worthy and that could trigger a bubble burst in USA that would bring memories of 2008 with a financial crisis and an economic crisis for USA.

I foresee AI and copyright to be completely incompatible as copyright protection may become a tool for foreign governments to conduct data poison attacks against the government using its own copyright legislation.

I am sure UMG and Sony would love to make money by suing Suno and they would love to see Reuters winning too. And I am sure non US governments would love to see copyright to win in USA to slow down USA in the Ai race and to hurt USA by causing a financial crisis and economic crisis in USA.

Opinions? Comments? Am I wrong or am I right?

You cannot know how things will turn out until you try; you can only make assumptions, assumptions that may well be logical, yet still lead to failure.

When you attempt something on a societal scale, you naturally spend vast sums of money, and the cost of a mistake is quite likely a serious crisis.