515
Now That The Shoe Is On The Other Foot, Microsoft And Epic Games Suddenly Agree That AI Is Theft (kotaku.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The past four weeks have been something of a wake-up call for the video game industry. You’ve read the headlines, so you know the deal by now: AI advancements spearheaded by Claude Opus 5.5 have turned the world of coding on its axis. Decompilations that used to take months, or even years, are now being pumped out on a daily basis, and publishers can’t keep up with the deluge of vibe-coded browser ports and “native” PC recompilations.

I’ve been covering and researching this over the past month, and there’s one recurring topic that keeps popping up in every comment section I read: karma. For many, this is the video game industry’s “you reap what you sow” moment, proof that the AI tools many publishers have brazenly admitted to using are a double-edged sword.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Technically speaking, a cleanroom reverse-engineered program isn’t illegal (this is how IBM PC clones were allowed to exist), at least in the US.

On the other hand, since AI cannot hold a copyright, the prompters cannot sue if, say, Sony or Microsoft just take their code and sell it.

Most decompiled games need a copy of the original game for assets (graphics, textures, etc) since those wouldn’t be recreated via AI, and shipping with them would be copyright infringement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Requirement for "cleanroom" development" are very strict. You'd have to disregard anyone who could have had just the tiniest plausible chance of having seen the tiniest part of the code.

    Any LLM usage would invalidate the cleanroom premise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    And more to the point, the cleanroom scenario were some people producing an 'interface specification' working backwards from the binary, not decompiling it. If they had decompiled the source code and passed that on, that would not be cleanroom.

    This also hinges upon the 'cloned' bit being an ABI/API, which by itself is not considered substantial enough for copyright protection.

    So the concept of an AI decompilation of a whole application being considered cleanroom and safe is a bizarre concept that seems to spring from wishful thinking rather than anything vaguely realistic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    The critical thing in the IBM BIOS case is that the ABI surface was deemed too trivial to be worthy of copyright protection, and the implementation was credibly not cloned.

    When you get to the point of the interface presented to human, I wager there would be consensus that is substantiave enough content there. Also an actual decompile would not be "clean room".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent