In my mind using an LLM to assist with decompiling is fine, as the output is provably correct. It either compiles to the original binary or it doesn’t.
Turning that into a playable PC game with controls that feel good, etc, is a different story. That requires human taste & judgement.
Which does kind of suck. Yeah, it's not nearly as cool to say "I prompted a probabilistic pile of tensors and it did the hard work for me", and I think it majorly adjusts how "impressive" projects are. There's no point pretending like decompiling a game by hand and using GPT-6.7 to do it are remotely comparable.
The suck-y part is that if you do the decomp with GPT-6.7 and produce, say, a PC port of an early 2000s console game, a large number of people will refuse to touch it and treat it as if you have committed a cardinal sin. Maybe that's justified? I dunno. It definitely goes beyond people just saying it isn't as fun.
Meanwhile so many westerners see LLMs as "stealing IP", it becomes a bit paradoxical where the lines get drawn.
Vibe-decomped projects are also… a different result.
A matching hand-decompile is useful in itself, but it also serves as a proxy for how well you understand the project; how good are the function and variable names, are the structures good, do you understand the entire flow. There are plenty of LLM-decompiles out there that just match but still every variable name is “unk14”, where every flow is total spaghetti instead of going back to something closer to what a human would have written, or even tons of __asm__ statements. The match stopped being a high-quality proxy metric for the quality of the project as a whole. (There are also LLM-assisted decompiles that are high-quality, but then usually with significant human input. And of course, you can try to ask the agent to clean up the resulting mess after you're done matching, assuming you have any tokens left.)
Of course, if you just want the binary back and collect Internet points, you don't care about any of this. But decompilation projects are often made for either a) understanding the game better (for speedruns, TASes, or just general explanation), or b) modifying it. And for both, it is much nicer to have source that is closer to the original.
(Of course there will always be the annoying "never AI" virtue-signalers, but the same can be said about anything.)
i think you agree that there is. but it should change your language about this idea of "consumers" and "benefits" - like this is the difference between making code and making a product. nobody NEEDS retro games. in my opinion, they aren't even that good! they are completely and utterly an aesthetic experience. the process IS the product.
Not to mention, there's a lot of stuff beyond an "aesthetic experience". Videogames have historical value, and they have relevancy at the very least as a testament of the state of the industry at any given point.
Legend of Dragoon, for example, integrated QTE-like controls in its attacks, even as a turn-based game. FFVIII, released the same year, implemented interaction in a somewhat similar way. These two are very early predecessors to mechanics Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 much more recently used. That has value.
If anyone wants to establish random conditions as to why they consider a work to be worthy or not, they may have those. But then they should keep them to themselves, rather than pretending people shouldn't care about something because of the way it was done. It's like the classic situation of someone complaining about how some open source project doesn't do something exactly in the way they like. I have nothing but contempt and despise for that sort of people, and it's a whole order of magnitude worse here, where the "problem" stems from their political stance, which nobody with a pulse should give a crap about.
[right hand emoji] "their political stance"... "they should keep them to themselves"