Assuming this is true (I believe it is unconfirmed), why limit to games?

yeah your right.we better act now

Hard to imagine this is actually a concern for game makers. Decompilation aside, AI can only produce shallow visual mimicry. If you were to actually try to enjoy these games you'd be miserable nearly instantly.

Rookie move to fight this legally! What replaces it actually will be engaging and competitive. Palworld is just the beginning....

Can you imagine a devtools company deciding, "Actually, no, we're going to police what kind of programs you can compile" ?

They need to decide of AI is a technology or an ideology. We cannot afford to blend the two, or we're going to end up as some kind of perverted global theocracy.

So people will be running reverse engineering through openrouter and similar or local inference while Anthropic is severely crippling cyber security usefulness of their products. Feels like own goal.

Anthropic (and others) mass harvested source code from around the internet while ignoring licenses to build their product. That's of course allowed (by them).

Using the trained model to create certain types of software that they already harvested, not allowed?

What's the difference between having the model make a game and writing any other software? It's like trying to say you can only use our model to write new stories but not fanfiction when they trained the model on the original works which would allow the fanfiction to be produced in the first place.

I see where they are coming from but I was really hoping for a surge of labour of love open source abandonware recreations.

What a wonderful day for open source models.

Hide random comments in my code so usAI says it won't touch it?

So we are going from running your stuff from cloud that randomly closes accounts or charges ridiculous costs to pinpointing arbitrary AI use cases and banning them on a whim. I guess that's progress !?

Indeed, cloud == other peoples computers, with all what it entails.

Mark my words: AI will only be allowed to destroy the software engineering profession, but somehow protectionism will be enforced for everything else in the name of “safety” and “fairness”.

Easy to see the slippery slope from "safety" to "DRM". Abliterated/open models will become increasingly important for AI freedom if they aren't made illegal first...

Open models become more and more appealing by the day.

They steal from everyone else, but closed source companies are protected.

The new copyright applies if you are worth more than $1 billion. Everything else is public domain!

It is unimaginable that people on this very site use the products of a company that is worse than Oracle and Microsoft combined.

EDIT: Why the downvotes, Anthropic people? I didn't say that Amodei's wife was public domain.

The most important secret of the atomic bomb was that it could be built at all. That's the same way I feel about Anthropic's products (increasingly, tech demos rather than products, if you go off the happy path.) They've demonstrated what is possible. Now I'm hoping for a fistful of rivals to build functional equivalents.

I'm still an Anthropic customer but in the long run I'm going to be using services that align with my interests. I want a provider that won't nerf or refuse requests around software security, building LLM training pipelines, the natural sciences, and reverse engineering. Anthropic is useful as a transitional bootloader for developing and demonstrating LLM technology broadly but each new safety "enhancement" makes it look more dispensable.

NOOOOO my Battlefield 2 in JS!!! NOOO

They can't help themselves but play the Don't be evil[0] in fast-forward.

They pretty much write the case for why open weights and open source models need to win. The amount of policing that Claude does is pretty problematic.

I'd written about this recently, but it won't even sign in during some browser tests on my local system for authentication which goes to my local system because it's built into its programming now. I literally can't use it on some long horizon work.

The reason I mentioned that here is it deems that as problematic behavior, and nothing I can give it will change its mind. I feel like with video game development, it is going to do something of the same.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

How can something that provably cannot create and only recycle follow such instructions.

The training data contains such originals, if you don't want it recycling those then purge the commercial data you stole and provide original data yourself.

I wonder how long before people figure out that you can run alliterated models locally on consumer hardware capable of doing all this without help from Sam or Dario.

Some context to this, there's been a bunch of discussion in indie game development spaces about how it might be risky to release demos, or any information really, since a bunch of (probably? can't necessarily assume now.) people seem to immediately try to clone it with agents. It's to the extent I've seen genuine confusion about which game is the original in Twitch streams/chats. There have been a bunch of takes one way or another on it, including 'if your game is clone-able from a demo your idea isn't unique or complex enough'.

Ars's bit on it recently: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2026/10/ai-game-clones-are-ma...

Just let the LLM do your thinking for you, but but don't worry if some thoughts are not allowed.

What is the reason for disallowing video game rewrites ? Officially, unofficially.

"and games from the user’s own designs and assets."

How would Claude know if the designs and assets are my own?