Makes this post from last year somewhat ironic: Subnautica 2 publisher Krafton will be an "AI-first" company, with AI HR, AI R&D, in-game AI services I'm open to alternative post titles, since...
A judge ordered the reinstatement of a video game developer after he was fired as part of a scheme cooked up by a CEO using ChatGPT. Facing the possibility of paying out a massive bonus to the developer of Subnautica 2, the CEO of publisher Krafton used ChatGPT to create a plan to take over the development studio and force out its founder, according to court records.
The Monday ruling details the bizarre story. Unknown Worlds Entertainment is the studio behind the 2018 underwater survival game Subnautica. The company has since been working on the sequel, Subnautica 2. In 2021, South Korean publisher Krafton bought Unknown Worlds Entertainment for $500 million and promised to pay out another $250 million if Subnautica 2 sold well enough.
Krafton’s internal sales projections for Subnautica 2 looked great, and looked like it would be on the hook for the additional $250 million. In an attempt to avoid paying this, Krafton CEO Changhan Kim turned to ChatGPT for help avoiding paying the developers the $250 million bonus. “As Unknown Worlds prepared to release its hotly anticipated sequel, Subnautica 2, the parties’ relationship fractured,” the court decision said. “Fearing he had agreed to a ‘pushover’ contract, Krafton’s CEO consulted an artificial intelligence chatbot to contrive a corporate ‘takeover’ strategy.”
It's impressive how people who really should know better still sabotage themselves by not listening to their lawyers. I suppose that comes from being the type of person who hates being told "No."...
It's impressive how people who really should know better still sabotage themselves by not listening to their lawyers. I suppose that comes from being the type of person who hates being told "No." Part of a lawyer's job is to diplomatically tell their client not to do stupid things, but the chatbots are quick to praise any garbage idea as brilliant.
My favorite thing is that before ChatGPT gave him the plan for what to do, it also advised him not to do this. You know your idea's bad when even notably-sycophantic ChatGPT is telling you it's an...
My favorite thing is that before ChatGPT gave him the plan for what to do, it also advised him not to do this. You know your idea's bad when even notably-sycophantic ChatGPT is telling you it's an awful idea.
That really feels like hitting the nail on the head there. Too many people who have this kind of mentality seem to worm their way into positions of wealth and power, usually with a prodigious...
I suppose that comes from being the type of person who hates being told "No."
That really feels like hitting the nail on the head there. Too many people who have this kind of mentality seem to worm their way into positions of wealth and power, usually with a prodigious ability to lie convincingly and betray ruthlessly.
I try to destroy this notion when I can, but having worked in proximity to CEOs and rich people, just because they're rich and in-charge means absolutely nothing about their capabilities and...
It's impressive how people who really should know better still sabotage themselves by not listening to their lawyers.
I try to destroy this notion when I can, but having worked in proximity to CEOs and rich people, just because they're rich and in-charge means absolutely nothing about their capabilities and critical thinking skills.
I honestly don't think a CEO has any mind to "know better" when it comes to stuff like this any more than the Janitor of the building does. The CEO just has more resources available to him, but without the inclination to use those resources he's no different than the janitor.
I suppose that comes from being the type of person who hates being told "No."
I've come to view it as a negative correlation. "Oh, this guy is filthy stinking rich? He must be a total fucknugget who can barely tie his own shoes". Am I just making a value judgement based on...
having worked in proximity to CEOs and rich people, just because they're rich and in-charge means absolutely nothing about their capabilities and critical thinking skills
I've come to view it as a negative correlation. "Oh, this guy is filthy stinking rich? He must be a total fucknugget who can barely tie his own shoes". Am I just making a value judgement based on a stereotype? Yes. Is it still accurate 99.9% of the time? Also yes, because there's something about having unimaginable wealth that completely ruins ones ability to exhibit basic human decency.
Is it the unimaginable wealth that ruins the ability to exhibit basic human decency, or does it (on the whole) require a lack of basic human decency to make unimaginable wealth?
Is it the unimaginable wealth that ruins the ability to exhibit basic human decency, or does it (on the whole) require a lack of basic human decency to make unimaginable wealth?
The older I get (and let’s be honest, the deeper into the Trump era this timeline goes) the more apparent it is to me that the power structures of the world are set up to incentivize and reward...
The older I get (and let’s be honest, the deeper into the Trump era this timeline goes) the more apparent it is to me that the power structures of the world are set up to incentivize and reward wrongdoing. My moral compass is strong, and it would take a tremendous effort for me to go against it. But if I did, there would likely be riches and opportunities waiting for me on the other side — a sort of compensation for the hard work of killing my own conscience, as I see it. “Of course that was difficult, but here, take this big sack of money to make it worth your while. Some financial stability ought to turn down the volume of your anguishing empathy.”
I don’t think I’m wired to ever be able to cross that rubicon. But the most “successful” people arguably don't think twice. Sociopaths, Ellisons, the Epstein class. The deck is stacked in favor of those who are unfettered by the impulse to be a good person. Conscience is for the plebes. And if I might connect the dots (and think conspiratorially for a moment) the reason our society has so many traditions and institutions about virtue and ethics is precisely because of the need to keep us on one side of that line and them on the other. The system only works for them if the prey are many and the predators are few.
I hear you and feel your struggle with morality here. One of the things I want to comment on is that virtuous, ethical behaviour is more effective at scale. It can be hard to see when living in a...
I hear you and feel your struggle with morality here. One of the things I want to comment on is that virtuous, ethical behaviour is more effective at scale. It can be hard to see when living in a society that is built to make ethics a privilege, but logically speaking it's the winning play. Whether that plays out within our lifetime, I can't say. I'd like to believe so, though.
I feel this with all of my being, and I haven't even been on this earth that long, in the grand scheme of things. If I could find it in myself to (or excise that part of me that couldn't), I'm...
I feel this with all of my being, and I haven't even been on this earth that long, in the grand scheme of things.
If I could find it in myself to (or excise that part of me that couldn't), I'm sure I could scam my way to relative comfort.
It feels like the very rules we are brought up with are hopelessly naive. When most theft in the world is wage theft, and very rarely has consequences, what is caring for things like shoplifting worth?
Little of column A, little of column B. Self-made billionaires tend to be just as grotesquely shitty as trust fund nepo babies. At the end of the day, all of these people add negative value to...
Little of column A, little of column B. Self-made billionaires tend to be just as grotesquely shitty as trust fund nepo babies.
At the end of the day, all of these people add negative value to society and should be treated as such.
I'm hopeful that the team gets their huge payout, leaves en-masse, and coincidentally reforms into a legally distinct studio to author a spiritual successor to Subnautica. In general these sorts...
I'm hopeful that the team gets their huge payout, leaves en-masse, and coincidentally reforms into a legally distinct studio to author a spiritual successor to Subnautica. In general these sorts of things are de facto forbidden via either non-competes or anti-poaching clauses, but I don't think you can be barred from naturally bleeding most of your staff out due to CEO drama, and then having them reform under a new banner that's publicized by the gaming media.
Thinking out loud, of course. Subnautica 1 was a favourite of mine, as was Natural Selection, so it'd be cool to see them come away from this well off.
I suspect they'll at least win damages and attorney's fees in the remainder of the litigation, at least based on what I saw of this decision. The judge did not seem to think highly of Krafton's...
I suspect they'll at least win damages and attorney's fees in the remainder of the litigation, at least based on what I saw of this decision. The judge did not seem to think highly of Krafton's arguments in this case.
There are noncompetes, but they're very rarely enforceable. Realistically there's no real mechanism to stop people from doing what you're describing. You can copyright specific content, you can't...
There are noncompetes, but they're very rarely enforceable. Realistically there's no real mechanism to stop people from doing what you're describing. You can copyright specific content, you can't copyright ideas and game mechanics though.
Agreed-ish, but as someone who has been under NDAs, non-competes, etc. that I don't think highly of, I wouldn't want to be the one who gets slapped with a frivolous lawsuit by a petty, whining,...
Agreed-ish, but as someone who has been under NDAs, non-competes, etc. that I don't think highly of, I wouldn't want to be the one who gets slapped with a frivolous lawsuit by a petty, whining, tantrum-prone CEO to prove a point. I'd imagine that'd go double for folks in the already rather vulnerable gaming industry.
(also, horrifyingly, there's also software patents on game mechanics -- such as pokemon battles, and loading screen minigames. So you can kinda sorta bring to bear the full weight of the American legal system on people who would dare infringe upon your brilliant, peerless, groundbreaking intellectual property of playing subway surfers while the map loads)
@delphi commented about agentic coding the other day, and the beginning of that comment I think applies well to using AI in general. It's especially relevant to this news:
In the underwater survival video game Subnautica, you can eventually get access to the PRAWN Suit, a mecha that lets you go far deeper into the ocean than you could before. When you first construct it, the in-game computer tells you that it's normal to feel a sense of limitless power when first putting the suit on, and that the months of training suit operators usually get is not to learn how to pilot the thing, but to understand that you're not invincible in it. Claude Code works the same way.
It's possible there is more detail than is in the article, but the ChatGPT output really reads like nonsense. I am surprised that the CEO is not more savvy, but I'm starting to realize that the...
It's possible there is more detail than is in the article, but the ChatGPT output really reads like nonsense. I am surprised that the CEO is not more savvy, but I'm starting to realize that the whole corporate power structure is often a game of smoke and mirrors, so maybe it should not be surprising that at least some of the people involved are not themselves empty suits.
You can read the full court order where the CEO's mindset is made pretty clear. He balked at the idea of needing to pay out on the revenue goal bonus (which would have been nearly $250 million)...
You can read the full court order where the CEO's mindset is made pretty clear. He balked at the idea of needing to pay out on the revenue goal bonus (which would have been nearly $250 million) and desperately sought ways to get out of it. When his lawyers and coworkers told him no, he asked ChatGPT multiple times for "strategies" which his coworkers and lawyers also told him would result in exactly this lawsuit and outcome.
Horribly sad. I've been a massive Unknown Worlds fan since Natural Selection. They've made some of those innovative, creative games of the past few decades. When they were bought by krafton, I...
Horribly sad. I've been a massive Unknown Worlds fan since Natural Selection. They've made some of those innovative, creative games of the past few decades. When they were bought by krafton, I feared the worst, and those fears seem to have come to fruition.
I can't think of a single time when an independent developer was purchased by a large holding company where it turned out well for the developer or their games. I'm glad they won in court and Ted will be reinstated. Maybe this will convince them to find a way to become independent again, because they're very talented people that manage to make really great, unique games in a sea of sameiness.
I recommend reading the full court order as the judge has written in plain English and in a way where the full narrative and scope are both clear and compelling.
I recommend reading the full court order as the judge has written in plain English and in a way where the full narrative and scope are both clear and compelling.
Makes this post from last year somewhat ironic: Subnautica 2 publisher Krafton will be an "AI-first" company, with AI HR, AI R&D, in-game AI services
I'm open to alternative post titles, since this one is a bit hamfisted to make it less clickbait-y
It's impressive how people who really should know better still sabotage themselves by not listening to their lawyers. I suppose that comes from being the type of person who hates being told "No." Part of a lawyer's job is to diplomatically tell their client not to do stupid things, but the chatbots are quick to praise any garbage idea as brilliant.
My favorite thing is that before ChatGPT gave him the plan for what to do, it also advised him not to do this. You know your idea's bad when even notably-sycophantic ChatGPT is telling you it's an awful idea.
That really feels like hitting the nail on the head there. Too many people who have this kind of mentality seem to worm their way into positions of wealth and power, usually with a prodigious ability to lie convincingly and betray ruthlessly.
I try to destroy this notion when I can, but having worked in proximity to CEOs and rich people, just because they're rich and in-charge means absolutely nothing about their capabilities and critical thinking skills.
I honestly don't think a CEO has any mind to "know better" when it comes to stuff like this any more than the Janitor of the building does. The CEO just has more resources available to him, but without the inclination to use those resources he's no different than the janitor.
That's definitely a part of it too. haha
I've come to view it as a negative correlation. "Oh, this guy is filthy stinking rich? He must be a total fucknugget who can barely tie his own shoes". Am I just making a value judgement based on a stereotype? Yes. Is it still accurate 99.9% of the time? Also yes, because there's something about having unimaginable wealth that completely ruins ones ability to exhibit basic human decency.
Is it the unimaginable wealth that ruins the ability to exhibit basic human decency, or does it (on the whole) require a lack of basic human decency to make unimaginable wealth?
The older I get (and let’s be honest, the deeper into the Trump era this timeline goes) the more apparent it is to me that the power structures of the world are set up to incentivize and reward wrongdoing. My moral compass is strong, and it would take a tremendous effort for me to go against it. But if I did, there would likely be riches and opportunities waiting for me on the other side — a sort of compensation for the hard work of killing my own conscience, as I see it. “Of course that was difficult, but here, take this big sack of money to make it worth your while. Some financial stability ought to turn down the volume of your anguishing empathy.”
I don’t think I’m wired to ever be able to cross that rubicon. But the most “successful” people arguably don't think twice. Sociopaths, Ellisons, the Epstein class. The deck is stacked in favor of those who are unfettered by the impulse to be a good person. Conscience is for the plebes. And if I might connect the dots (and think conspiratorially for a moment) the reason our society has so many traditions and institutions about virtue and ethics is precisely because of the need to keep us on one side of that line and them on the other. The system only works for them if the prey are many and the predators are few.
I hear you and feel your struggle with morality here. One of the things I want to comment on is that virtuous, ethical behaviour is more effective at scale. It can be hard to see when living in a society that is built to make ethics a privilege, but logically speaking it's the winning play. Whether that plays out within our lifetime, I can't say. I'd like to believe so, though.
I feel this with all of my being, and I haven't even been on this earth that long, in the grand scheme of things.
If I could find it in myself to (or excise that part of me that couldn't), I'm sure I could scam my way to relative comfort.
It feels like the very rules we are brought up with are hopelessly naive. When most theft in the world is wage theft, and very rarely has consequences, what is caring for things like shoplifting worth?
Little of column A, little of column B. Self-made billionaires tend to be just as grotesquely shitty as trust fund nepo babies.
At the end of the day, all of these people add negative value to society and should be treated as such.
I'm hopeful that the team gets their huge payout, leaves en-masse, and coincidentally reforms into a legally distinct studio to author a spiritual successor to Subnautica. In general these sorts of things are de facto forbidden via either non-competes or anti-poaching clauses, but I don't think you can be barred from naturally bleeding most of your staff out due to CEO drama, and then having them reform under a new banner that's publicized by the gaming media.
Thinking out loud, of course. Subnautica 1 was a favourite of mine, as was Natural Selection, so it'd be cool to see them come away from this well off.
I suspect they'll at least win damages and attorney's fees in the remainder of the litigation, at least based on what I saw of this decision. The judge did not seem to think highly of Krafton's arguments in this case.
There are noncompetes, but they're very rarely enforceable. Realistically there's no real mechanism to stop people from doing what you're describing. You can copyright specific content, you can't copyright ideas and game mechanics though.
Agreed-ish, but as someone who has been under NDAs, non-competes, etc. that I don't think highly of, I wouldn't want to be the one who gets slapped with a frivolous lawsuit by a petty, whining, tantrum-prone CEO to prove a point. I'd imagine that'd go double for folks in the already rather vulnerable gaming industry.
(also, horrifyingly, there's also software patents on game mechanics -- such as pokemon battles, and loading screen minigames. So you can kinda sorta bring to bear the full weight of the American legal system on people who would dare infringe upon your brilliant, peerless, groundbreaking intellectual property of playing subway surfers while the map loads)
@delphi commented about agentic coding the other day, and the beginning of that comment I think applies well to using AI in general. It's especially relevant to this news:
It's possible there is more detail than is in the article, but the ChatGPT output really reads like nonsense. I am surprised that the CEO is not more savvy, but I'm starting to realize that the whole corporate power structure is often a game of smoke and mirrors, so maybe it should not be surprising that at least some of the people involved are not themselves empty suits.
You can read the full court order where the CEO's mindset is made pretty clear. He balked at the idea of needing to pay out on the revenue goal bonus (which would have been nearly $250 million) and desperately sought ways to get out of it. When his lawyers and coworkers told him no, he asked ChatGPT multiple times for "strategies" which his coworkers and lawyers also told him would result in exactly this lawsuit and outcome.
That was a really interesting read, thanks for sharing!
Horribly sad. I've been a massive Unknown Worlds fan since Natural Selection. They've made some of those innovative, creative games of the past few decades. When they were bought by krafton, I feared the worst, and those fears seem to have come to fruition.
I can't think of a single time when an independent developer was purchased by a large holding company where it turned out well for the developer or their games. I'm glad they won in court and Ted will be reinstated. Maybe this will convince them to find a way to become independent again, because they're very talented people that manage to make really great, unique games in a sea of sameiness.
I recommend reading the full court order as the judge has written in plain English and in a way where the full narrative and scope are both clear and compelling.