Just stopped by to mention this project: OpenRA
Can not say wich is better
OpenRA is great, but that’s the older 2d C&C engine implementation. OpenTS is the newer 3d engine.
has no tibsun support officially
More AI slop. C&C deserves better.
human slop, discussion forums deserve better than your vapid braying
Slopcode, not Open Source. The code was stolen.
Can you lot just stop spamming every thread with this irrelevant screeching? Nobody cares about your performative outrage, your comment add absolutely nothing to the conversation. Nobody is forcing you to use the code, so if you don’t like it, just move on like an adult instead of throwing a public tantrum. This is the online equivalent of a kid rolling around screaming on the floor at a supermarket.
Damn. Imagine shilling for big AI companies because you gain something. Those companies stole from people to sell it. Where are your principles?
I’m not shilling for any big AI companies. Chinese companies release their models in the open, and now we even have models like Qwen that run locally and can do more useful work than frontier models from half a year go. Complaining that this is stealing is like complaining that downloading a torrent is stealing. But you do you, but whatever you do, don’t copy that floppy!
You don’t do open source software?
Do you understand open source licenses?
A big premise of that is attributation. If you don’t give appropriate credit, you’re in breach of license. The code AI used didn’t allow it to be distributed without it. They stole from that person.
We’re talking about the worker, not the bourgeoisie. Their labour was exploited to benefit a corporate entity. And you’re consuming stolen proceeds from the bourgeoisie and defending their contributions.
I do open source software and have been doing it for many years. I understand open source licenses very well. DeepSeek assigns all rights of the outputs to you, which makes you the legal entity with the ownership of the code:
Meanwhile, your confusion when you talk about stealing the code stems from your lack of understanding of how LLMs actually work. People tend to confuse the output looking similar to training data with the mechanism being simple retrieval. There is no database or a lookup table, and there is no copy of any text they were trained on tucked away somewhere inside the weights. What they have is a compressed statistical model of the patterns that exist across trillions of tokens the text was broken down into. When you ask an LLM a question it does not go find the relevant code and regurgitate it. What actually happens is that it generates text token by token based on the probability distribution it learned during training. It’s more akin to the way state machines like Markov chains work.
If anything, the way LLMs work is actually much closer to how humans improvise or combine ideas than to how a search engine or database works. When you write a sentence, you don’t pull up a specific piece of code you memorized from some repository and copy it. You’ve absorbed the patterns from countless examples of language over your lifetime and internalized them. Coding is a process of generating novel combinations based on those patterns.
Similarly, the weights of a model encode statistical regularities about word co occurrence, syntactic structures, semantic relationships, and higher level conceptual patterns. When it generates text it is combining those patterns in ways that were never present in the training data. That’s how LLMs produce entirely novel sentences that have never been written before, and why they can be prompted to combine ideas from different domains in creative ways.
LLMs can reproduce training data verbatim in some cases, but this happens because of overfitting on rare or repeated sequences. When a specific string appears many times in the training data like a famous quote or a common error message the model learns to assign an extremely high probability to each token in that exact sequence. So when it generates it follows the most likely path to reproduce the original text. It is similar to how a human can memorize a song or a poem by hearing it many times but that does not mean our general language ability works by pulling up stored copies from memory.
We’re talking about the worker, not the bourgeoisie. Their labour was exploited to benefit a corporate entity. And you’re consuming stolen proceeds from the bourgeoisie and defending their contributions.
You can certainly make this argument when it comes to closed corporate models. However, it completely falls apart when applied to open models that aren’t owned by any corporation. Open models are available for everyone to use, and you running Qwen on your machine isn’t benefiting any corporate entity in the slightest. And the whole stolen goods angle is basically the RIAA anti-piracy argument, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for parroting it.
You’re also confusing tools with the actual capitalist system here which makes your entire argument deeply incoherent. It is simply not possible to avoid using anything produced by exploited labour while living in a capitalist society. And nobody is defending capitalism here.
I would urge you to spend a bit of time trying to actually understand the subject you’re attempting to discuss here to form a coherent position on it.
I’ll stop “screaming” when it stops being stolen and ineligible for being open source. You’re the one who looks like a child, supporting fascists, theft, and the destruction of communities.
Nothing is being stolen child. Also hilarious how you trolls all of a sudden think copyrights are really important. Any rational person understands that copyrights exist to protect the corps, but I guess expecting intellectual consistency from the likes of you is too much to ask. Meanwhile, big news to me that China is fascist. At least try to come up with some coherent talking points to make your trolling less obvious.
This is you right here:
“AI models — Codex, Claude, and DeepSeek — substantially accelerated the final phase. They were given disassembly, decompiled pseudocode, surrounding reconstructed source, engine context, compiler errors, and binary-diff feedback, and helped interpret functions, generate candidate implementations, and iterate toward closer matches. Their output was never treated as authoritative: every candidate was reviewed by developers, compiled, compared against the reference executable.”
As expected: slop.
I’m less opposed to AI assisted development if it just a fan or two building free, open source ports that makes older stuff more playable. Now if it’s a full-priced corporate remaster, then I start to take issue with AI reliance.
The problem is that if it’s not a clean-room/Chinese wall reimplementation, then it isn’t Free Software regardless of what license they try to slap on it. In order for a Free Software license to be valid the person choosing the license has to be the copyright holder to begin with, and if it’s a derivative work of the proprietary original – which it is, if it’s created by feeding the original into an AI – then they aren’t!
How dare they use the forces of production to preserve our cultural heritage for free 😡
as expected, another vapid reddit.world opinion
As expected? There’s been a few high profile RE efforts recently of games of the era without AI tooling. The Mario 64 decompile effort from a few years ago being the most notable. While I’m not surprised to see an AI disclosure here (I would assume agents are a very useful tool for this particular work), this just as readily have been an entirely human passion project.
As expected? There’s been a few high profile RE efforts recently of games of the era without AI tooling. The Mario 64 decompile effort from a few years ago being the most notable.
Those are just as bad, if not worse. Decompiling the thing just means the generated source code is a derivative work of the proprietary original. You can’t put a Free Software license on that!
There is no clean room implementation of a discrete title that would not run afoul of Western copyright and trademark law. If you want to release Super Mario 64, as it was made, you will not have a free license to do so until it enters the public domain. You can release Supra Wario 63, with all it’s not quite the same assets, and argue that you can get away with it. The value of these projects is not the licensing.
Now, worse? This scenario would actually be improved if the AI were to do the whole implementation? Because it would apply a FOSS license where a human could not? This is nonsensical.
Yeah, “as expected”. The project showed up out of nowhere five days ago and is clearly vibe-coded to fuck and back. The talk of how “oh, it accelerated development, but we checked everything, we swear” is obvious bullshit like it is with basically all of these dime-a-dozen, dead-end slop projects that are showing up everywhere.
No, it would not “just as readily have been an entirely human passion project”, because those take months to years, and you therefore hear about them organically as they’re in development; they don’t show up out of the aether to get a few paragraphs’ mention on an obscure Linux blog. Even from a statistical point of view, those passion projects are vanishingly few compared to the slop projects.
I know it’s five days old and made heavy use of AI. My comment is that before hearing about it, it’s deeply cynical to expect it to be AI driven.
before hearing about it
while* hearing about it. The only introduction is a bulleted list of what the project is and isn’t that Liam copy–pasted from their docs. Nothing about any anticipation; nothing about how long it had been in the works; nothing about the authors; no link to a release blog or previous story discussing it in any way; nothing about finally being in a playable state/anything related to the dev cycle. Liam talked about it like it popped into existence (true) and they were just hearing about it for the first time (true).
Combined with what I said above, it’s just basic media literacy that I’m reading about a dead-end throwaway project.
it’s deeply cynical
I gave it a shot by reading the article, which was more than it deserved.
while* hearing about it.
Think we just have a different take on the meaning of ‘expect’ is all.
nothing about finally being in a playable state
“… appears to work on Linux with Proton 11 as captured in my screenshot above”
copy–pasted
heh
“… appears to work on Linux with Proton 11 as captured in my screenshot above”
The emphasis in that point was the word “finally”, not “playable state”. As in “it’s finally working after x amount of time” like you’d expect with a project that takes any appreciable time to get working.
I see c&c
I upvote
I’ve not played Tiberian Sun in quite some time
among the best in the series.
hands down
“You do need to own a copy of the game to play it with OpenTS”
Arg!! I love these passionate re-imaginations, remakes and whatnot of old games, but they are already developing with AI, so why are they not generating a new asset resource that replaces all the original proprietary stuff!
Anyway, I hope we soon get complete asset replacement for ALL the old games Diablo, C&C, Baldurs gate and hundreds of other old classics that all have an open engine that still relies on shtty original copies of proprietary assets. Nobody cares about these corporate parasites anyway, so f’em…
So we should use corporate shitty AI art to replace the beloved artwork of classic games instead of just pirating or grabbing from Internet Archive? Bold take in a place like Lemmy.
Beloved artwork does no good if proprietary. OpenTTD does it best, making their own assets to replace the originals, but not everybody can put that much effort. I would rather have game with generated assets than no game at all or having to go through the hurdles of pirating abandonware.
