The legitimate developers I know aren’t hit by Claude restrictions, because they don’t fucking use it.
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.
Linus Torvalds uses it. I’d consider him a legitimate developer.
“was legitimate”
Ftfy
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.
Nvh of that. I just looked it up. Can it be hosted on a lower spec machine? I downloaded GPT4All and couldn’t use it because my specs weren’t good enough.
I think the harder part I face is setting up qwen to be effective for my uses
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.
No idea.
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.
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.
Microsoft word was not the first.
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.
just a different way of saying the same thing. the slopmasters have zero issue stealing IP when the IP holder can’t defend themselves.
@GreenKnight23 @technology Copyright and Patents are only as good as your pockets are deep.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I will admit that it is possible I need to make my position a little clearer. The vast majority of comments on this platform are overwhelmingly critical of AI in other posts, yet many of those same people were praising it when it was being used to decompile video games and jailbreak the PS5.
I am simply, once again, pointing out the two-faced nature of this platform. My gripe, if you will, is consistency. If you hate AI, then hate it for everything it does, including the things that might actually be beneficial. It’s convenient to play both sides and act as a devil’s advocate when it suits your position, but ultimately, that’s a useless and self-defeating stance.
If you’re going to take a centrist position on AI, then do that. Praise it where it deserves praise and criticize it where it deserves criticism. But don’t turn around and say you hate everything about AI in one breath, only to make an exception when it happens to serve your interests.
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.
o… it can still do this. if you pay for the super premium (hidden) tier
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.
100% just a paywall
The best part of paying for a coding assistant is discovering halfway through your project that it has developed opinions about what your project is allowed to be. Imagine your IDE refusing to compile because it thinks your game feels a little too much like Tetris. At least a compiler doesn’t pretend it’s doing you a favor.
I think that’s what they wanted from the very beginning, to accelerate projects that are socially convenient for them, but not those that are not.
There’s that issue with universal machines that some people don’t like that others are allowed to make universal decisions.
I got shut down by it two days ago. It suddenly told me that the project I was working on had tripped some kind of guard, that it couldn’t continue working with me on it, and it couldn’t tell me why. I just went back to my local Qwen model. I can’t see this doing great things for selling Claude subscriptions.
I wonder if you can trip this on corporate subscriptions just by examining standard code so I could finally have an excuse to not use it at work.
As it was before AI. Local is the answer when shared is at the mercy of interests antagonistic to the users.
My coworker recently had an experience where he was trying to fix a security hole and his AI wouldn’t do it because it claimed that it was unsafe.
For me I was working on testing our IoT device in heavy network load situations. It said it would not help because it was too close to crafting a DDoS attack. Thankfully this was rather trivial to do.
That’s what happens when you let others do your computation for you.
Run the tool on your own hardware.
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.
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.
Why? Reverse engineering is neither unethical or illegal.
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.
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
Killing the entire species is absolutely less of a concern for investors than copyright violations.
Have you seen the investment in fossil fuels. 😄
🤣😂🥲🙂😐😔🥺😭
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
Well, to be blunt, it depends. Would the eventual extermination of the human race cause them to lose money in the short term?
It’s dangerous for IP, though.
Only if it is protected.Which code is afaik not.
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.
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.
Copyright generally requires human expression regardless of what the type of work is, it’s not about what you were inspired by
If you did derive your work from something else and yours is similar enough, then now both you and the original author has separate copyrights on the result which both needs to be licensed to sell the work (prime example is book translations)
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.
If investors aren’t spooked already, they’re mentally deficient anyway.
This is where they’re gonna make things less secure as far as national security - foreign local models won’t have these restrictions for obvious reasons, so people will gladly install those and ignore crippled domestic options.
Yes we must support our domestic Cambodian models!
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.)
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 consumer 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.
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 !localLLaMa@sh.itjust.works 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.
Copyright violation from American AI hoovering up all the data is okie dokie unless it’s used by peasants to threaten technology corporations.
I’m not defending them it’s just comical hypocrisy, and ans I doubt China AI will have the same kneecapped coding capabilities.
hypocrisy is how all governments function. If you’re not politically aware, you are the slave, not corporations.
Chinese models are kneecapping Tiananmen Square and Winnie the Pooh, they’ll happily do anything else.
But at least they are open (Most of them at least).
So there’s at least the possibility to lever these restrictions away.
While I agree that open-weight is better than nothing, it is not the same as open-source.
Having a truly open-source model would be wonderful and it would also allow us to verify what data it is trained on and whether it has the right to use that data.The Open Source Initiative’s definition of a fully open-source AI model includes the training data as a key element. Some developers wonder, however, how feasible it is to distribute the enormous datasets required.
He says Stanford HAI has staked out a specific bar: alignment with the Linux Foundation’s Model Openness Framework at its top tier, the “Open Science” class – meaning the code, the training data (or a thoroughly documented, auditable account of it), and the tooling are all released, not just the weights, alongside a real way for outside researchers and communities to download, run, study, contribute to, and modify the work. Anything short of that, in his view, forecloses entire lines of research: You can’t, for example, study how a model’s training data shapes its cultural assumptions, audit it for how fairly it represents different populations, or test new architectures at the scale where genuinely new behavior shows up. You can only observe a finished system from the outside and guess at why it does what it does.
Right I agree, but this is basically the entire internet (and more, like scanned books), what it is trained on. They are using reinforcement learning now. And this is also one of the reasons why they have escaped the sandboxes in the American models for example.
So you can probably safely assume that they are trained on all data that is available easily. and very likely also artificially generated data at this point. How long they are trained on, what kind of data is a different story. I think it gets increasingly more interesting how these models are trained.
So while I agree it would be really nice to know exactly what it is trained on and how it is trained on that, I think that those that have the resources to get at least close to frontier models (i.e. AI companies) don’t just open up on that, sadly.
Kimi K3.1 pro, had reverse engineering information pulled from its training data. So at least some of them are.
Was bound to happen eventually. They’re going to try to make open models illegal now.
My opinions are that its fine to make llm projects that threaten corporations who rely on saas. Doesn’t mean im going to use them or that they’re any good, but I want to see these companies who are firing all their employees and throwing all their money at ai to get scourned. Will build more distrust between the corpos too.
And just to be clear its okay when they steal literally the entire world’s knowledge base. But as soon as adobe and Microsoft see a 2% drop in profit all the sudden everyone’s a terrorist, or its the worst thing to happen ever. I hate ai but I’ll root for my enemy when he’s destroying one of my original enemies, can’t wait for these companies to burn. I’d go back to the stone ages if I knew elon, Sam Altmann, etc where all dead.
I’d go back to the stone ages if I knew elon, Sam Altmann, etc where all dead.
Going back to 80’s tech where most things were still analog should do it. Pen and paper, fax machines, analog tape and vynil records
I think we can realistically live in a happy medium with modern goodies. I do like apsects of analog and prefer it in many applications over digital. And its hard to say that in general because the first place my mind goes to is sensors for pi/esps, and your first thought is older analog tech. Analog sensors just seem more straight forward and it feels better to know you can just do shit without a computer in the way sometimes.
Like we sent people to the moon on kilobites of data, yet Microsoft windows needs 16 gigs of ram as a min req so copiolt can take screen shots every 30 seconds. Analog components just work on their own, require less power, and can just become its own system without a whole digital computer. Maybe instead of wifi bases lights and a whole home assistant server you just get a old fassion photoresistor and some clap sensors.
Its really as simple as just buying things that don’t need access to the internet or some dumb app just because the product costs less. I think in theory we could exist in a world where there’s a better happy medium where every devices doesn’t have to also be a android smart phone so that it can also spy on you and sell your data to ai and government.
But also at the same time I am stubborn enough where I will drag us down into the dark ages if it meant if the offer magically was presented to me. If you put two buttons infront of me I would press the dark ages button so fast.
Creating a shittiness free tech ecosystem is pretty straightforward, the question is where do you get the money to do so without the expectation of ever increasing profit.
You don’t have to worry about that if you first remove the expectation of ever increasing profit, for example by widespread use of the guillotine, see.
I’d just start with fitting every tech mba with one of those collars that explode
deleted by creator
Filofax, yes or no?
Hilarious
“Give us all your code for free who cares about copyright anyway”
“NOOOO YOU CANT USE OUR PRODUCT TO GET FRE CODE 😡😡😡”
AI exists to aid capital against you; not aid you against capital.
AI exists to devalue human labour.
I can only talk about software developers, but there it’s fucking pants on head to fire developers. It only makes sense if you don’t have any competitors.
More than 50% of software projects fail either because they run over time or over budgetl, but for obvious reason both. So you get this tool that increase your output, let’s say 10x. Does that mean that you can fire 9/10 developers? What does your competitors do? If they retain their developers they can smoke your company in months.
This assumes 10x the features at 2/3 the quality is a winning bet
The quality doesn’t matter. Look at a product like netsuite which dominates corporate accounting. It’s a total piece of shit. And overpriced one at that. But it has oracle in the name, so an executive can choose it with little thought and not take any blame because it was a “reasonable” choice that “everyone” uses. Much of corporate life is monkey see monkey do. Rarely does innovation happen because trying something different is a huge risk to some middle manager or execute that is just trying to make it to the next promotion or bonus.
Maybe your are right, software that checks all the boxes wins b2b deals even if it is a peice of shit
The reason a lot of these enterprises are looking to offload developers is because they see AI as accelerating their workforce. These businesses are doing the same thing as they were before, but with AI, which means they don’t have enough workload to justify having that many people on anymore (as long as they are using AI workloads). If one developer with AI can do the work of 3 to 10 developers without AI the logic is that they can have their developer headcount and still be ahead.
Not that I agree with what they’re doing, but this is the logic behind it.
I suspect we’ll see these features opened up for US-allied actors against their foreign competitors.
You can guarantee US auto companies are going to be free to reverse engineer software and manufacturing techniques of Chinese companies, for instance.
But you’re not going to be allowed to use Grok or Meta to hack your Tesla or BMW, pull out the OS, clone it as freeware, and offer a substitute unconstrained by subscription fees and gated upgrades.
