Dave Plummer starts with a compiled Windows calculator and uses Ghidra's analysis to guide an AI-generated Rust implementation without supplying source files. He explains that decompilation exposes machine operations but does not restore original comments, variable names or design intent. The result is a working reconstruction whose interface and a simple calculation can be exercised.
Dave Plummer cautions that large reported test counts and successful compilation do not prove every state transition matches the original. The AI repaired errors during its own testing, and untested input sequences may still reveal discrepancies. He also notes that related public code could have appeared in model training, so the demonstration cannot establish that the model had no prior exposure to similar implementation details.
Dave Plummer argues that translating an application into another language does not establish independent authorship or settle whether reuse is authorized. He distinguishes his ethical objection to unauthorized substitution from the legal questions he says require a more specific analysis. Recovering or migrating software with permission may be valuable, while a calculator demonstration does not prove that large applications, plugins and platform dependencies can be ported reliably.
Watch on YouTube
