AI Should Not Make Someone Else’s Game or App Yours

AI-assisted reverse engineering should be restricted when its purpose is to take someone else’s game or app, make superficial changes, and release it as a new product without permission. Tools and distribution platforms should prohibit workflows designed for that kind of unauthorized copying.

This is my position on how these tools should be used and governed. It is a proposal for stronger protection of creators, not a statement that every form of reverse engineering is currently banned.

A finished app represents more than its code

A game or application is the result of many decisions: what it should do, how it should feel, which problems matter, and which ideas do not work. The visible release also represents debugging, testing, artwork, writing, and the effort of maintaining something after launch.

When someone reproduces that work, changes its name or appearance, and presents it as their own, the original creator’s contribution becomes easy to overlook. I do not think access to an AI tool should make that acceptable.

The concern is especially important to me for independent developers. They should be able to share a finished product with users without treating every release as an invitation to repackage their work.

Where I would draw the restriction

I would restrict AI assistance aimed at extracting and reusing another developer’s proprietary code, artwork, audio, or other original material without permission. I would also support a ban on using these tools to disguise a copied product for rerelease, including stripping attribution or making superficial changes intended to hide where the work came from.

Consider a hypothetical example: someone takes an independently developed puzzle game, reproduces its distinctive screens and assets, changes the logo and colors, and uploads it under a different name. Calling that an “AI-built game” would not answer the important question: whose work made it possible?

My concern is the appropriation and misleading rerelease of another person’s work. A shared genre, a familiar feature, or an independently built solution should not by itself be treated as proof of copying.

Changing a product does not erase its origins

“Modified” and “original” are different claims. A new icon, a different menu, or additional features do not explain whether the underlying material was used with permission.

Creators should receive more than a credit line when permission is required. Attribution matters, but I do not consider it a substitute for consent or for respecting the terms under which someone shared their work.

Open-source software also deserves that respect. When a developer chooses to share code under a license, users should follow its conditions rather than assume that publicly accessible means unrestricted.

Restrictions need a clear scope

A blanket prohibition on every kind of reverse engineering could also block work that is intended to help users. Security research, accessibility, interoperability, preservation, and analysis of software someone owns or is authorized to examine raise different questions from copying a product for commercial rerelease.

I would want any proposed restriction to distinguish those purposes carefully. The test should consider authorization, what material is being reused, and how the result is represented—not simply whether AI was involved.

That distinction makes the protection more credible. It keeps the focus on misuse without treating all technical investigation as theft.

What AI tools and app stores should do

I would like tool providers and distribution platforms to adopt practical protections:

• Refuse explicit copying requests. AI tools should refuse requests to take proprietary material without permission and conceal its origin for rerelease.
• Support permission-based work. Tools should help developers work with their own projects, authorized projects, and material whose licenses permit the intended use.
• Make reporting usable. App stores should give original creators a clear way to report suspected copying and submit evidence.
• Review evidence fairly. Similarity alone should not settle a dispute. Developers accused of copying should have a way to explain independent work or show permission.
• Act against repeat misuse. Platforms should have meaningful consequences for repeated, substantiated attempts to pass off another creator’s work as original.

These are proposed safeguards. They are not a claim that every tool or app store already follows them.

Use AI to build work you can stand behind

I want AI to help people learn, debug, test, and develop their own ideas. I do not want it to become an excuse for taking a finished game or app and claiming the result as a personal achievement.

Before using someone else’s work, ask what permission you have, what the applicable license allows, and whether you can explain the origin of the material honestly. If the plan depends on hiding the original creator, that is a strong reason to stop.

My position is straightforward: restrict AI-assisted reverse engineering when it is used for unauthorized copying, and prohibit workflows designed to disguise and rerelease that copied work. Protecting creators should be part of building useful AI tools.

Have a perspective on this? Email MRK Tamilan.