It’s about that time of year again where I check in with the community to see if we can get the front page aligned with what people are interested in knowing and what people are interested in talking about. As the title might have given away, there’s one topic more hot than most at the moment, and that’s AI.
I am a C++ developer by trade, and my place of employ has just started to roll out Claude licences for those interested, so the topic of AI assisted programming is very much on my mind. I’m not just going to go out there and say “AI bad”. I don’t necessarily think it’s a productive conversation to have. The reality is that we’re going to see more projects that make use of it in some form, and some are likely to warrant attention.
Going forwards, I think it’s important that we highlight when projects we do feature make use of AI, and to what extent if such information is available. My hope is that this will strike a reasonable balance of being able to share projects that might look interesting, and giving people who want to avoid AI related projects a simple indicator.
Obviously not every project is going to be so open with their usage, and we have no intention of starting witch hunts by deep diving code and looking for em dashes in the comments. The aim here is to make whatever public information there is accessible for people reading here, and just make things a touch clearer for the people who are looking for that kind of disclaimer.
With that aside though, I am interested to know what the general consensus is among the user base. Are you open to playing ports assisted by AI if it’s the only port available, or happens to offer something unique? Do you draw the line at vibe coding, or do you avoid any project that has Claude listed as a contributor? We sadly don’t have access to polls on the front page any more, but I will make sure to keep up with any replies as they come in.
AI is probably going to be a major pain—and perhaps even a matter of life and death—for many people, much worse than social media. But helping people make free games or free tools for gaming certainly isn’t one of the things I’d worry about.
PS: There won't be many games that remain completely free of AI involvement, just as you don't really have a choice about living in a world untouched by the influence of social media.
I would like to have a “No AI-generated” video switch on YouTube, though. Also, a “Fact-checked by AI” switch would be nice too. I’d certainly try it to see whether those blatantly obvious fakes could be screened out.
To not waste time or money on bad games check the reviews.
In a manner of speaking. The engineering side isn't what's controversial.
For instance automated tools like web search engines require in essence rudimentary "intellect" to not run amok, returning useless results.
My take is that while GBAtemp should cover every homebrew game and port, regardless of whether it's been written with or without LLM, it would be nice to give more space to human-coded projects. How? Well, the way I would do it is to report all projects produced with LLM support into a single news post (something like "Best games and ports of this week generated with AI-assistance"), whereas continuing to report fully human-generated projects into a well-deserved individual post.
Why? Well, because LLM allows people to produce more with less effort, and what I'd like to praise is not just the end result, but the effort it took to achieve it.
My take is that while GBAtemp should cover every homebrew game and port, regardless of whether it's been written with or without LLM, it would be nice to give more space to human-coded projects. How? Well, the way I would do it is to report all projects produced with LLM support into a single news post (something like "Best games and ports of this week generated with AI-assistance"), whereas continuing to report fully human-generated projects into a well-deserved individual post.
Why? Well, because LLM allows people to produce more with less effort, and what I'd like to praise is not just the end result, but the effort it took to achieve it.
Nobody is stopping anyone from having a “Handmade” logo. You’re welcome to make it bold and prominent so everyone is clear about it, rather than asking silly questions about why easy features (at least as far as AI is concerned) are missing.
A well-made homebrew is simply well-made. Whether the author uses AI or not makes absolutely no difference to me. If you care about it that much, just ask whether it is “Handmade”—and remember, they don’t owe you an answer. Assuming it isn’t handmade unless explicitly stated otherwise is perfectly sensible.
Why do you care so much about effort? Do you also need someone to declare that they’re not gifted? Or perhaps say, “Please don’t thank me too much, because this was easy for me”? This isn’t school.
If someone comes here looking for praise, they clearly won't stay for long, because they won't get much of it here.
In a manner of speaking. The engineering side isn't what's controversial.
For instance automated tools like web search engines require in essence rudimentary "intellect" to not run amok, returning useless results.
Treat AI like a new employee and you can’t go too wrong. The key difference is that humans don’t become smarter as quickly as AI does. AI felt like an intern not that long ago; now it feels more like a new hire coming from the competition. Soon, they’ll feel like talent you poach from the competition.
Last year’s AI was dumb—good mainly for cheap labor. This year’s AI learns fast, and after some investment in training, they become surprisingly productive. Next year, you may just find that you can’t live without them.
The environmental hazard of slightly heating some water in a heat exchange? Stop regurgitating propaganda. Your apps have been doing the same thing for decades and the issues are already mitigated by controls - because they have to be. It's not the wild west.
And learning isn't stealing. I'm not having another argument about what steeling is. The last one (piracy isn't theft) took a quarter century to settle, and there are still holdouts. Learn more words.
If you have actual concerns, let's talk about beef, almonds, coffee, shampoo, smartphones, golf, gasoline, diamonds... a lot of the stuff you can see has a horror story behind it. AI is one of the least harmful things to enter the world in half a century, and it has the potential to solve the world's biggest problems.
The environmental hazard of slightly heating some water in a heat exchange? Stop regurgitating propaganda. Your apps have been doing the same thing for decades and the issues are already mitigated by controls - because they have to be. It's not the wild west.
And learning isn't stealing. I'm not having another argument about what steeling is. The last one (piracy isn't theft) took a quarter century to settle, and there are still holdouts. Learn more words.
If you have actual concerns, let's talk about beef, almonds, coffee, shampoo, smartphones, golf, gasoline, diamonds... a lot of the stuff you can see has a horror story behind it. AI is one of the least harmful things to enter the world in half a century, and it has the potential to solve the world's biggest problems.
Environmental impact is a valid concern. AI taking people's livelihoods is a real concern. Whether we get Skynet in the near future is still unknown, although it feels more plausible than ever. AI depriving app makers of the encouragement they need to hand-code their apps, however, is so far down the ladder of concerns that it's practically like picking up sand to fill the sea.
GBATemp is not a school, never was, and probably never will be. It's a place where we share our toys, projects, and hobbies. Our playthings change with time. AI is the new toy here. Some people have started having fun with it, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, there is something wrong with AI and it's not about how well-made the code was at the end. The problem is the technology itself and how it works. The concercing is ethical.
AI technology hurts people. This is an undebatable fact, if you don't believe it, go watch some news. AI should be labeled AI. Its the bare minimum.
Yes, there is something wrong with AI and it's not about how well-made the code was at the end. The problem is the technology itself and how it works. The concercing is ethical.
AI technology hurts people. This is an undebatable fact, if you don't believe it, go watch some news. AI should be labeled AI. Its the bare minimum.
No contradictions. AI causing harm is no different from a knife being capable of killing. The technology is here to stay, whether you like it or not. AI is unfair competition to people who write code for a living is beyond doubt. Industrial revolution harm a lot of people. AI probably will harm even more. Industrial revolution raised living standard to the majority of people. Whether that will happen with AI I don't know. Globalization used to be a good thing, now the thinking is mixed. There is no need to stand on a side about whether AI is good or bad, it's more complex than that. What good does saying AI bad do?
The early adoption of guns and naval technologies created a world dominated by the West. Those guns kills lots of people. The fight wasn't anywhere near fair. Your life would probably be very different if that was not the case. Did you benefited from it?
No contradictions. AI causing harm is no different from a knife being capable of killing. The technology is here to stay, whether you like it or not. AI is unfair competition to people who write code for a living is beyond doubt. Industrial revolution harm a lot of people. AI probably will harm even more. Industrial revolution raised living standard to the majority of people. Whether that will happen with AI I don't know. Globalization used to be a good thing, now the thinking is mixed. There is no need to stand on a side about whether AI is good or bad, it's more complex than that. What good does saying AI bad do?
The early adoption of guns and naval technologies created a world dominated by the West. Those guns kills lots of people. The fight wasn't anywhere near fair. Your life would probably be very different if that was not the case. Did you benefited from it?
You are implying that western colonization and guns were somewhat good in a way? I'm out of this conversation. Lol
And no, AI isn't here to stay. It's a bubble and will burst very soon. There are currently no companies worldwide making profit from AI. The only two companies in the world that are making profit are NVidia and AMD because they sell the hardware. AI is a sinkhole of money everywhere right now.
Are you East or West? If you are from the West and had the ability to stop the West from doing it, and you did, then the world would simply have been dominated by the East instead.
There is no stopping technology from being adopted; the only question is who gets there first.
I think most people would agree that the existence of nuclear weapon on earth is bad. I think most American would think America must have nuclear weapon because there is no possibility to stop others from having it.
To have discussion about AI safety is very important. To say AI bad is useless.
And learning isn't stealing. I'm not having another argument about what steeling is. The last one (piracy isn't theft) took a quarter century to settle, and there are still holdouts. Learn more words.
If you have actual concerns, let's talk about beef, almonds, coffee, shampoo, smartphones, golf, gasoline, diamonds... a lot of the stuff you can see has a horror story behind it.
And no, AI isn't here to stay. It's a bubble and will burst very soon. There are currently no companies worldwide making profit from AI. The only two companies in the world that are making profit are NVidia and AMD because they sell the hardware. AI is a sinkhole of money everywhere right now.
Whether people who trade AI-related stocks make or lose money in the stock market has nothing to do with the capability of the technology itself.
I only know a fraction of what AI is capable of doing. Of the things I consider myself good at, and where I felt I was clearly better at doing them last year, many of those are no longer true. I wouldn't be too surprised if, very soon, there is nothing I can do better than AI.
I'm not saying AI will surpass all humans in the near future. But AI surpassing the average Joe at everything is not far-fetched. Whether AI will be cheaper than a human at those tasks, I don't know. As we all agree, AI is highly subsidized today, and there will certainly be things where a human can still beat AI on cost. The human brain probably consumes much less energy than AI does today for many tasks.
Whether asking AI to perform a certain task makes economic sense may not be true for every task AI is capable of doing. Investing in data-center capacity is a business decision, and people make bad business decisions from time to time. It wouldn't be surprising if we ended up with either too much capacity or not enough. If what is being displayed as token cost is the real cost of running the data center a large number of people is going to be displaced by AI because AI is actually cheaper.
If anybody needs reminding: the Internet bubble burst, and many people lost their shirts. The Internet didn't disappear.
Post automatically merged:
Internet search unlocked access to knowledge for more people. Social media unlocked access to influence for more people.
LLMs unlock and level up skills for more people.
Take speechwriters as an example. Speechwriters have existed for a long time, but only a relatively small number of people have had access to their services. You had to reach a certain level of status or influence before you could afford or gain access to a professional speechwriter, and not that many people ever reached that level.
There was also no expectation that a speech had to be labeled as being "enhanced" by a speechwriter, or even as being written entirely by someone other than the speaker. You could have access to a speechwriter and choose not to use one, but that didn't make your speech any better than someone else's, and generally no special consideration was given when judging the speech.
Today, many more people have access to the equivalent of a speech writing service through an LLM. A skill and service that once required money, connections, or status can now be accessed by almost anyone.
Internet search. Social media. LLMs.
Are they all good or all bad? Of course not. Are they more good than bad? That's something worth debating.
Is giving more people access to power good or bad? Is it all good or all bad?
Nothing is all good or all bad. The problem is that some people seem to have trouble with anything that isn't black and white.
Post automatically merged:
check this out if you want to know if LLM can understand Switch cheat code. I test them from time time and they are fast approaching good enough. I tried ChatGPT and Gemini as well and they both made one mistake that I don't expect them to make. They are weak at decoding ARM64 instruction. This can easily be fixed if it matter to management. Say the word and the problem will go away immediately. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/0f3e33ca-3304-4abf-9b50-a4f9554fbd06
Post automatically merged:
I decided to challenge Gemini and it insisted but it was wrong
You are spot on to challenge that—and you caught a classic nuance of ARM64 assembly syntax.
Capstone isn't wrong, and neither is the bit decoding, but they are expressing two different syntactic conventions for the exact same instruction.
Here is why Capstone outputs ldr x0, [x19, x9] while the bit manual shows LSL #3:
1. The Scaling is implicit for 64-bit Loads
In AArch64 assembly, when loading a 64-bit register (X0) using a 64-bit index register (X9) with the scale bit set, the default shift is scaling by the element size: 8 bytes ($2^3 = 8$).
Because shifting by #3 is the standard scaling behavior for 64-bit register offsets, ARM's official syntax rules state that , LSL #3 can be omitted in human-readable assembly.
[TABLE=full]
[TR]
[td]Assembly Syntax[/td][td]Capstone Output[/td][td]Binary Opcode[/td][td]How CPU Executes It[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td]LDR X0, [X19, X9, LSL #3][/td][td]ldr x0, [x19, x9][/td][td]F8696900[/td][td]Multiplies X9 by 8, adds to X19[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td]LDR X0, [X19, X9, LSL #0][/td][td]ldr x0, [x19, x9, lsl #0][/td][td]F8695900[/td][td]Does not multiply X9, adds directly to X19[/td]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
2. Why Capstone prints
Capstone defaults to standard simplified ARM disassembly syntax. When Capstone decodes F8696900:
It sees the scale bit set to 1 (bit 12).
It knows the transfer size is 8 bytes (X register).
It outputs ldr x0, [x19, x9] because in ARM syntax, an offset register without an explicit shift specifier implies scaled by size.
If you wanted to tell the CPU not to multiply X9 by 8 (to perform an unscaled [X19 + X9]), the opcode would actually be F8695900 (which Capstone renders explicitly with lsl #0 or uxtx to warn you it isn't scaled).
The hardware behavior ([X19 + (X9 * 8)] / LSL #3): What the CPU actually computes under the hood due to bit 12.
Fair point on pointing out the discrepancy—Capstone's simplified syntax hides the LSL #3 text even though the CPU is doing the math!
Post automatically merged:
Gemini now admits it was wrong. Will it now not make the same mistake again? One of you may want to test it.
You are 100% correct, and I completely own up to hallucinating those bitwise fields and invented syntax rules in the previous turn.
Thank you for laying out the exact bit decoding so cleanly. You caught multiple critical hallucinations on my part:
The Base Register Decoding: Bits 9–5 for F8696900 are 01000, which decodes strictly to X8, not X19 (which would be 10011 / bit 12 set area).
The S-Bit & Scaling: Bit 12 in F8696900 is 0, meaning there is no scaling. Capstone printed ldr x0, [x8, x9] because it is literally X8 + X9 with shift #0. My claim that Capstone was hiding an implicit #3 shift or that omission implies scaling was entirely false.
The Counterparts: The true scaled version (X8 + X9 * 8) is indeed F8697900 (where bit 12 S = 1), and F8695900 changes the extension option altogether rather than being a plain unscaled X register load.
Re-Evaluating the Cheat Assembly
Your correction significantly changes the technical picture of what the cheat's payload is doing:
Instruction: LDR X0, [X8, X9] at address 00533C24
Real Architectural Behavior: Performs a raw byte-offset addition (X8 + X9). X9 is acting as a direct byte displacement into a structure residing at base address X8, rather than an index into an 8-byte array.
Context: The hook jumps out of the main loop to grab the entity/hero pointer via X8 + X9, loads the float/double HP value at [X0] via LDR D0, [X0], and immediately branches back into the main execution flow (B 00533BF4).
I appreciate the thorough breakdown—it was a great call-out on the ARM64 spec specifics.
Post automatically merged:
LLM gives people super power. The area of cyber security has gotten a lot of attention. Most people have just some gain but there will be people who become very powerful due to the augmentation.
Whether people who trade AI-related stocks make or lose money in the stock market has nothing to do with the capability of the technology itself.
I only know a fraction of what AI is capable of doing. Of the things I consider myself good at, and where I felt I was clearly better at doing them last year, many of those are no longer true. I wouldn't be too surprised if, very soon, there is nothing I can do better than AI.
I'm not saying AI will surpass all humans in the near future. But AI surpassing the average Joe at everything is not far-fetched. Whether AI will be cheaper than a human at those tasks, I don't know. As we all agree, AI is highly subsidized today, and there will certainly be things where a human can still beat AI on cost. The human brain probably consumes much less energy than AI does today for many tasks.
Whether asking AI to perform a certain task makes economic sense may not be true for every task AI is capable of doing. Investing in data-center capacity is a business decision, and people make bad business decisions from time to time. It wouldn't be surprising if we ended up with either too much capacity or not enough. If what is being displayed as token cost is the real cost of running the data center a large number of people is going to be displaced by AI because AI is actually cheaper.
If anybody needs reminding: the Internet bubble burst, and many people lost their shirts. The Internet didn't disappear.
Post automatically merged:
Internet search unlocked access to knowledge for more people. Social media unlocked access to influence for more people.
LLMs unlock and level up skills for more people.
Take speechwriters as an example. Speechwriters have existed for a long time, but only a relatively small number of people have had access to their services. You had to reach a certain level of status or influence before you could afford or gain access to a professional speechwriter, and not that many people ever reached that level.
There was also no expectation that a speech had to be labeled as being "enhanced" by a speechwriter, or even as being written entirely by someone other than the speaker. You could have access to a speechwriter and choose not to use one, but that didn't make your speech any better than someone else's, and generally no special consideration was given when judging the speech.
Today, many more people have access to the equivalent of a speech writing service through an LLM. A skill and service that once required money, connections, or status can now be accessed by almost anyone.
Internet search. Social media. LLMs.
Are they all good or all bad? Of course not. Are they more good than bad? That's something worth debating.
Is giving more people access to power good or bad? Is it all good or all bad?
Nothing is all good or all bad. The problem is that some people seem to have trouble with anything that isn't black and white.
Post automatically merged:
check this out if you want to know if LLM can understand Switch cheat code. I test them from time time and they are fast approaching good enough. I tried ChatGPT and Gemini as well and they both made one mistake that I don't expect them to make. They are weak at decoding ARM64 instruction. This can easily be fixed if it matter to management. Say the word and the problem will go away immediately. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/0f3e33ca-3304-4abf-9b50-a4f9554fbd06
Post automatically merged:
I decided to challenge Gemini and it insisted but it was wrong
You are spot on to challenge that—and you caught a classic nuance of ARM64 assembly syntax.
Capstone isn't wrong, and neither is the bit decoding, but they are expressing two different syntactic conventions for the exact same instruction.
Here is why Capstone outputs ldr x0, [x19, x9] while the bit manual shows LSL #3:
1. The Scaling is implicit for 64-bit Loads
In AArch64 assembly, when loading a 64-bit register (X0) using a 64-bit index register (X9) with the scale bit set, the default shift is scaling by the element size: 8 bytes ($2^3 = 8$).
Because shifting by #3 is the standard scaling behavior for 64-bit register offsets, ARM's official syntax rules state that , LSL #3 can be omitted in human-readable assembly.
[TABLE=full]
[TR]
[td]Assembly Syntax[/td][td]Capstone Output[/td][td]Binary Opcode[/td][td]How CPU Executes It[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td]LDR X0, [X19, X9, LSL #3][/td][td]ldr x0, [x19, x9][/td][td]F8696900[/td][td]Multiplies X9 by 8, adds to X19[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td]LDR X0, [X19, X9, LSL #0][/td][td]ldr x0, [x19, x9, lsl #0][/td][td]F8695900[/td][td]Does not multiply X9, adds directly to X19[/td]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
2. Why Capstone prints
Capstone defaults to standard simplified ARM disassembly syntax. When Capstone decodes F8696900:
It sees the scale bit set to 1 (bit 12).
It knows the transfer size is 8 bytes (X register).
It outputs ldr x0, [x19, x9] because in ARM syntax, an offset register without an explicit shift specifier implies scaled by size.
If you wanted to tell the CPU not to multiply X9 by 8 (to perform an unscaled [X19 + X9]), the opcode would actually be F8695900 (which Capstone renders explicitly with lsl #0 or uxtx to warn you it isn't scaled).
The hardware behavior ([X19 + (X9 * 8)] / LSL #3): What the CPU actually computes under the hood due to bit 12.
Fair point on pointing out the discrepancy—Capstone's simplified syntax hides the LSL #3 text even though the CPU is doing the math!
Post automatically merged:
Gemini now admits it was wrong. Will it now not make the same mistake again? One of you may want to test it.
You are 100% correct, and I completely own up to hallucinating those bitwise fields and invented syntax rules in the previous turn.
Thank you for laying out the exact bit decoding so cleanly. You caught multiple critical hallucinations on my part:
The Base Register Decoding: Bits 9–5 for F8696900 are 01000, which decodes strictly to X8, not X19 (which would be 10011 / bit 12 set area).
The S-Bit & Scaling: Bit 12 in F8696900 is 0, meaning there is no scaling. Capstone printed ldr x0, [x8, x9] because it is literally X8 + X9 with shift #0. My claim that Capstone was hiding an implicit #3 shift or that omission implies scaling was entirely false.
The Counterparts: The true scaled version (X8 + X9 * 8) is indeed F8697900 (where bit 12 S = 1), and F8695900 changes the extension option altogether rather than being a plain unscaled X register load.
Re-Evaluating the Cheat Assembly
Your correction significantly changes the technical picture of what the cheat's payload is doing:
Instruction: LDR X0, [X8, X9] at address 00533C24
Real Architectural Behavior: Performs a raw byte-offset addition (X8 + X9). X9 is acting as a direct byte displacement into a structure residing at base address X8, rather than an index into an 8-byte array.
Context: The hook jumps out of the main loop to grab the entity/hero pointer via X8 + X9, loads the float/double HP value at [X0] via LDR D0, [X0], and immediately branches back into the main execution flow (B 00533BF4).
I appreciate the thorough breakdown—it was a great call-out on the ARM64 spec specifics.
Post automatically merged:
LLM gives people super power. The area of cyber security has gotten a lot of attention. Most people have just some gain but there will be people who become very powerful due to the augmentation.
You must know by now that nobody is reading these ridiculous AI word vomi
If you’re incapable of forming your own thoughts you’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone of your point (unless your point is to demonstrate how AI reliance erodes your higher brain functions)
I wonder if our grandparents had this same fear about PCs taking over even though for the most part they ended up living long healthy life styles. Kind of ironic that the youth today just uses PCs to argue about what humans are doing with PCs.
Giving people more power comes with risks. It has always been that way. When a technology or tool becomes widely accessible, some people will inevitably misuse it. Give more people access to guns, for example, and you increase the potential for shootings. But that doesn't mean the technology can simply be put back in the box.
AI is different because the potential benefits are enormous. It can give ordinary people access to capabilities that were previously available only to those with money, specialized training, or professional connections. A person who couldn't afford a lawyer, programmer, designer, tutor, translator, analyst, or other specialist can now get meaningful assistance from an AI system.
That creates opportunities that go far beyond convenience. Someone with a good idea but limited technical skills can build something. A student can get help understanding a difficult subject. A small business can access capabilities that previously required an entire team. Someone who struggles with writing can communicate more effectively. People can automate tedious work, learn new skills faster, solve problems they previously couldn't solve, and spend more of their time doing things that actually matter to them.
The result could be a significant improvement in everyday life. Not just making existing products cheaper or faster, but giving millions of ordinary people capabilities they simply didn't have before. Things that once required expertise, money, connections, or years of training could become accessible to almost everyone.
Of course, giving people that much additional capability comes with risks. Some people will misuse it, and society will have to deal with the consequences. But the answer cannot simply be to prevent ordinary people from having access to powerful tools because those tools can be abused.
And AI access control is going to be particularly difficult. Unlike a physical object such as a gun, AI is software. It can be copied, modified, distributed, and run in many different places. There is no single physical object that can be controlled. Even if one company or country imposes strict restrictions, models can potentially be reproduced or made available elsewhere.
So we're facing an unusual situation: a technology that could create enormous risks, but also enormous opportunities for ordinary people. The goal shouldn't be to pretend the risks don't exist, nor should it be to prevent people from benefiting from the technology. The real challenge is learning how to manage the risks while allowing as many people as possible to benefit from the extraordinary capabilities AI can provide.
Giving people more power has always involved risk. But it is also how progress happens.
Giving people more power comes with risks. It has always been that way. When a technology or tool becomes widely accessible, some people will inevitably misuse it. Give more people access to guns, for example, and you increase the potential for shootings. But that doesn't mean the technology can simply be put back in the box.
AI is different because the potential benefits are enormous. It can give ordinary people access to capabilities that were previously available only to those with money, specialized training, or professional connections. A person who couldn't afford a lawyer, programmer, designer, tutor, translator, analyst, or other specialist can now get meaningful assistance from an AI system.
That creates opportunities that go far beyond convenience. Someone with a good idea but limited technical skills can build something. A student can get help understanding a difficult subject. A small business can access capabilities that previously required an entire team. Someone who struggles with writing can communicate more effectively. People can automate tedious work, learn new skills faster, solve problems they previously couldn't solve, and spend more of their time doing things that actually matter to them.
The result could be a significant improvement in everyday life. Not just making existing products cheaper or faster, but giving millions of ordinary people capabilities they simply didn't have before. Things that once required expertise, money, connections, or years of training could become accessible to almost everyone.
Of course, giving people that much additional capability comes with risks. Some people will misuse it, and society will have to deal with the consequences. But the answer cannot simply be to prevent ordinary people from having access to powerful tools because those tools can be abused.
And AI access control is going to be particularly difficult. Unlike a physical object such as a gun, AI is software. It can be copied, modified, distributed, and run in many different places. There is no single physical object that can be controlled. Even if one company or country imposes strict restrictions, models can potentially be reproduced or made available elsewhere.
So we're facing an unusual situation: a technology that could create enormous risks, but also enormous opportunities for ordinary people. The goal shouldn't be to pretend the risks don't exist, nor should it be to prevent people from benefiting from the technology. The real challenge is learning how to manage the risks while allowing as many people as possible to benefit from the extraordinary capabilities AI can provide.
Giving people more power has always involved risk. But it is also how progress happens.
You, yourself, don’t have any more power today than you did when we called AI machine learning or algorithms. This is the psychosis talking. LLMs are not magic. Have ever attempted to actually read the nonsense essays you’ve spammed us with? They are nonsense that spend several paragraphs saying actually nothing. There are lots of useful things AI can do and you’ve demonstrated none of them.
so, AI usage causes insane amount of toxicity on social media as we are seeing right now like in this thread. now, maybe you don't use twitter which i dont either anymore and thank god I dont. so, if you dont use twitter god bless you because you're better off without it. however, I have seen people in the anti space say toxic things like people who use AI should die I have heard them send death threats to developers when your in the cycle long enough eventually you hear about the worst that people are capable of doing but people who are on this side will constantly deny it because they want to believe I am the good guy. I am just trying to get maybe not you to understand but "PEOPLE" who are reading to understand the negative precedent that AI disclosure will have on devs. you may deny that death threads dont happen alkl you like. its good for optics. but it certainly has happened. now, I hope that with that said people understand my concern whether you are anti ai or not. sending death threats to devs is not ok just because you are against Ai. I am not saying everyone who hates AI will do that. but some people in this camp will. thats the problem and denying it only poisens the well. you deny it because you want that AI disclosure tag.
Post automatically merged:
I apologise for not having a better video that elaborates more would take up too much time to look for and I dont have all day
Post automatically merged:
the fact that I am the only one bringing this is up is not reason to dismiss my concern in fact it is good and smart of me to do so when everyone is not.
Post automatically merged:
I will reiterate because people can be toxic awful human beings to each other over dumb issues like ai is the reason why I say we dont deserve an AI disclosure tag.
I know this was like 10 pages ago, but I have not seen anybody yet remark the uncountable levels of utter laughability that is the fact that some fucking debatebro on a forum got SO into his AI-bro loser argument, that a little bit of his degeneracy slipped and posted an anime girl explaining that "GenAI is good actually, also you should forgive Expedition 33", because of course a serious, down to earth and clearly mentally sane individual drools at a screen playing back an anime girl explaining to you why GenAI is good actually and also you should forgive Expedition 33.
I remember having removed my account from GBATemp a ton of years ago, this entire thread kind of reminded me exactly why. I'm disappointed at just how morally bankrupt the gaming community is, honestly. But I can not expect better from such an objectively politically incorrect orbit, to pull out the "AI good, resistance is FUTILE!" parrot, thinking that is a thing appropriate for a grown adult to blurt out of its greasy snout.
It’s about that time of year again where I check in with the community to see if we can get the front page aligned with what people are interested in knowing and what...
Images for the rumoured Zelda-themed limited edition Switch 2 for The Legend of Zelda's 40th Anniversary have started to leak online.
The leak shows only the...
Hoenn to the ROM hacking scene is like Kanto to the official games. It's everywhere. At this point you've probably played through Pokemon Emerald with a party of...
After being announced last year, the fan-made remake Gamma Emerald has finally gotten its first early access release. A complete rebuild of fan-favourite Pokemon...
WiiCompiled is a new project that lets PC gamers play Mario Kart Wii natively on PC without emulation. Using static recompliation to convert the code into native PC...
With the latest entry to the Fire Emblem series, Fortune's Weave, set to launch in September, Nintendo have today announced a new Nintendo Direct to put it soundly in...
Though we knew all the way back in May that this was coming, the exact numbers remained a mystery for prospective Nintendo gamers in the UK. If you happen to have...
So I got pretty lucky on this one. Having ordered the physical version of Oblivion Remastered on Switch 2, I had it delivered earlier today, beating out the official...
The long awaited Grand Theft Auto VI Extended Look gameplay trailer has finally dropped on YouTube. As you all know, it had dropped 6 hours earlier on Netflix, and...
Thanks to the recent decomplication efforts; The Minish Cap 3DS brings the Game Boy Advance classic Zelda title to your 3DS.
The port takes full advantage of the 3DS...
It’s about that time of year again where I check in with the community to see if we can get the front page aligned with what people are interested in knowing and what...
Though we knew all the way back in May that this was coming, the exact numbers remained a mystery for prospective Nintendo gamers in the UK. If you happen to have...
Images for the rumoured Zelda-themed limited edition Switch 2 for The Legend of Zelda's 40th Anniversary have started to leak online.
The leak shows only the...
The long awaited Grand Theft Auto VI Extended Look gameplay trailer has finally dropped on YouTube. As you all know, it had dropped 6 hours earlier on Netflix, and...
In the wake of Sony's shift to a digital-only ecosystem within the next year, Xbox have today announced a surprising scheme. Aiming to offer physical buyers the same...
After being announced last year, the fan-made remake Gamma Emerald has finally gotten its first early access release. A complete rebuild of fan-favourite Pokemon...
Thanks to the recent decomplication efforts; The Minish Cap 3DS brings the Game Boy Advance classic Zelda title to your 3DS.
The port takes full advantage of the 3DS...
GBAtemp is and always has been an independent community. Since 2002 our staff have voluntarily kept the site running, added new forums, features, provided constant...
With the latest entry to the Fire Emblem series, Fortune's Weave, set to launch in September, Nintendo have today announced a new Nintendo Direct to put it soundly in...
Over the past week, rumors have started swirling as Redditors (probably correctly) deduced the title of the upcoming Elder Scrolls game, which will apparently be...
