That article was bizarrely difficult to read. Light on any details, all over the place story narration and the author trying far too hard to tie it to fucking AI today.
Just talk about the game genie on its own merits, it's far more interesting than AI slop for some of us
I agree. It's an interesting side note that it was cited in the Anthropic case, but the way it was used in that case is so weird that it really took away from the whole thing. It just kinda made me angry (again) about LLMs using all the information for free and with no citations instead of happy and nostalgic for the game genie (which still didn't help me make it past level 2 in Ninja Gaiden, dang it!)
Yes, if the ruling allowing the GameGenie is about the freedom to tinker, I see this being an effective defence for building an AI myself from my own books for my own use. But, removing the need to buy the book in the first place is the key problem that the article seems to ignore.
Yeah I also thought that was a weird choice. The Game Genie is interesting on its own merits, there's no need for forced attempts to tie it in to the Current Thing.
Just talk about the game genie on its own merits, it's far more interesting than AI slop for some of us