openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
I mean, certain free copies of games have historically always included the risk of viruses, so what’s your point?
Did you only read the first sentence?
What difference does it make? Malware is malware, regardless of how or why it got there. And unofficial copies/releases of software are always prime targets.
You are referring to closed source unofficial cracks/patches/keygens. That is not the situation at hand. If those unofficial releases were open source in a time before AI, people would almost implicitly trust them.
The question above was asking why people were hesitant about this codebase even though it is open source. And the reason is that it was written by an unknown bot (or rather, series of bots) whose motives are inconsistent and unpredictable even to its prompter. It doesn’t mean it’s not safe, but it means that literally no human can currently be certain it’s safe. Without sufficient effort, we cannot yet know for certain that there isn’t a very cleverly obfuscated piece of malware lurking in this source.
Remember that correlation is not causation. You may believe there is correlation between unofficial releases and malware, and that may be true, but that does not mean it is causal. The point I’m making is that there is a literal causal relationship between unaudited AI reverse engineered code, and malware. And that is what is new and people need to be aware of.