Of course, in a post-AI world people will still want to work together on things. But these sorts of tools do disincentivize it. That's the point I'm getting at here.
I feel a lot of these decomps were created by people not as passionate as your examples, because they are only showing up now, not in the pre-AI era. There is a flood of AI decomps only now because AI has lowered the barrier enough to where a project a person could not be passionate enough about to spend years of their limited time on Earth toiling on it is now easily accomplishable. It's a huge ask to put years of your life towards one thing. People might have obligations, work, family, children, more important hobbies, yet still wish one day they could get around to that one project, but couldn't find a way of prioritizing it over other things. I can't fault them for that. Now they can get it done in a month and still have time for other things that matter to them.
The claim is "we lose the rich communities that only exist from manual work." I still think the people who want those communities, like the people who still create art by hand in spite of the existence of diffusion, will keep doing their own thing. They were going to from the start, AI or not, but now that AI is a thing the separation is clearer to people on the outside, since they are seen to not rely on AI.
The communities that will appear because we can now organize AI decomp projects wouldn't have appeared at all with the barrier so high, had it not been easy enough to start them. The blocker was other obligations and not having the time to devote that was intrinsically required to finish them by hand, with the vast majority of people still being a member of outer society.
Dare I say it, maybe not all of the people into reverse engineering really enjoyed the process. It's just they put up with learning it because if you wanted to modernize an abandoned game in the pre-AI era, you had no choice but to learn those things. Only the people with the interest and patience remained, and those are the examples we are able to point to, while the people with only enough passion to get it done with AI assistance left a while ago and are only now reappearing.
If an AI-generated version of X already exists, at least some of the people who might have joined the "let's build X together" community aren't going to sign up anymore. Some of them may feel discouraged because AI got there first, while some may simply feel like the AI version is good enough for their purposes.
You may be right that new and different communities will spring up around AI-generated projects. I'd argue something is still lost, even if something new is gained in the process. I think there's something special about communities of people who are passionate enough to do truly hard things that require dedicating large amounts of time and effort. While AI can help people accomplish far more than they otherwise would've, reducing the amount of human effort and attention that goes into any given task is almost inherent in any AI use.
I am not saying that this way is better, but people might start asking themselves when they have a tool sitting right in front of them that they can use to increase their productivity in this domain on the order of 1,000 times or more, if the value of holding together their community overrides the amount of time and maintenance they will have to devote to maintaining it and the project by rejecting AI. Accomplishing the goal they set out for to begin with, having the source code of the game delivered, can be accomplished by any single person now, and that leaves the technically competent communities fragile to breaking up by any one person splitting off, dumping all the code somewhere, and the less passionate leaving one community for another. How many of those people are there for the community itself, and how many are there to just have the code? It will become clearer with anyone being able to split off and use AI to finish things, but I am confident the most passionate people will still remain on the other side. It's just that the motivations of those involved were not as obvious without the distinction between hobby-as-passion and the primarily goal-driven, until now.
Unfortunately those are also better discussed with LLMs.
I recently had to refresh on some algorithms and some manual coding for an interview where using LLM is forbidden. It was super fun, I forgot how fun solving software puzzles can be!
It’s unfortunate our industry has become so boring. Because our society values capital above all else, quitting my job to do something fun would relegate me to economical loser status. We really need a shift to the left in politics and a way to redistribute the productivity gains this technology allows.
Solving puzzles is fun when it's negative-free.
On my last interview, I had fan too, but that's only because I had an alternative and didn't even expect to pass. Then the work started, and now puzzles are less fun again, because if I don't keep successfully solving them, my family won't eat.
In abstract, sure, but that is a much shallower discussion that many people are strongly disinterested in. It's generic, where a human decompile may not be (as a cloner I haven't looked into those projects). I don't like the idea of a group of fans of art frames saying don't bother looking at what's in the art frame, our conversation is equal.