The only intellectual property here would be trademark. No copyright, no patent, no trade secret. Unless someone wants to market the test results as a genuine Pac-Man-branded product, or otherwise dilute that brand, there's nothing should-y about it.

It's not an ethics thing. It's a guardrails thing.

That's a valid point, though an average LLM would certainly understand the difference between trademark and other forms of IP. I was responding to the earlier comment, whose author later clarified that it represented an ethical stance ("stealing the hard work of some honest, human souls").

Why? This seems like a reasonable task to benchmark on.

Because you hit guard rails.

Sure, reasonable to benchmark on if your goal is to find out which companies are the best at stealing the hard work of some honest, human souls.

correction: pacman is not a human and has no soul.

Why do you have to willfully misinterpret the person you're replying to? There's truth in their comment.

tech bros hate reality