There are also new jobs emerging to safeguard a companies assets that were created by AI. New white hat hacking opportunities.

Anyways, however you put this, I see this as a property theft and taking pride at open sourcing does not justify it.

It's also disingenuous to call it open source as that might tempt others to use it believing that it actually is open source.

Let's call it what it is - stolen IP and released without permission of the author. Sure, it's good that it opens the debate as to whether that's ethical given that's essentially what the model itself is doing, but it's very clear in this instance that he's just asked for and been given a copy of source that has a clear ownership. That's about as clear cut as obtaining e.g. commercial server-side code and distributing it in contravention of the licence.

It's not completely clear that this is the original source. According to the post it's a reimplementation based on documentation created from the original source, or perhaps from developer documentation and the SDK. Whether that's the same thing from a legal standpoint, I don't really know - I think from a personal morality standpoint it's clear that they are the same thing.

It feels more like clean room reverse engineering by llm, technically.

Well first they need to proof that Viktor was actually copyrightable. If it was largely written by an llm, that might not be the case? AFAIK several rulings have stated that AI generated code can not be copyrighted.

This is a common misreading of the law. AI cannot hold authorship of code, but no ruling has claimed so far that ai output itself can't be copyrighted (that I know of)

This would suggest that there has been and that there seem little will to revisit it: https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-...

That said, the article says "Okay, prompts, great. Are they any interesting? Surprisingly... yes. As an example workflow_discovery contains a full 6-phase recipe for mining business processes out of Slack conversations, something that definitely required time and experiments to tune. It's hardcoded business logic, but in prompt instead of code."

So the article author clearly knows this prompt would be copyrighted as it wasn't output from an AI, and recognises that there would have been substantial work involved in creating it.

That Reuters article is misleadingly worded. The Stephen Thaler case in question is because Thaler tried to register the AI itself as the author of the copyright, not that he tried to register the output for copyright under his own name. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/the-f...

Suppose I illicitly get my hands on the source code for a proprietary product. I read through this code I'm not supposed to have. I write up a detailed set of specifications based on it. I hand those specifications off to someone else to do a clean room implementation.

Sure, I didn't have a license for the code that I read. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't taint my coworker's clean room implementation.

A reminder to never take legal advice from HN.

I don't think anyone was offering any? Merely discussing a confusing new situation that has arisen.

Concept looks good. Just needs some more polishing like Newspaper theme, Endless swiping, HN like dark/light theme etc on mobile app.

It not a disadvantage but a rare trait nowadays.

I loved reading it a little bit at the start, then I switched to reading a little bit in the middle and then continued from were I was at the start.

YMMV.

Came here to type something similar and saw this comment. +1

Just repeat this until you understand a language's unique ways of implementing things, and understand why a language has those choices compared to others. I always pick one of these experiments to learn a new language with/out LLM support. 1. Ray tracing 2. Gameboy Emulator 3. Expression evaluation (JSONLogic or Regex)

These are super easy to implement in 100s of lines of code, however if you want to optimize or perfect the implementation, it takes forever and you need to know a language's nuances to get it better. Focus on performance tuning these implementations and see how far you can go.

I wish there was a JSON representation of the geometry, so we don't have to code and compile. :P

My most favorite annoying thing about ads is the 'x' close button. They make it very small almost impossible to be perfect. I end up clicking the ads 50% of the times. Been running PiHole at home network for almost 8yrs happily. The ads come into play only when I am traveling.

All of a sudden, internet is full of people who hate AI written articles. A few months back, my article got a lot of haters because I used AI tools to improve my draft. Being a non-english first language person, I don't see an issue. But I wish AI improves to an extend where draft to complete articles don't look AI written.

You should use AI to point out errors or suggest better phrasing. But if you ask AI to rewrite your post, it will produce content that sounds fake and corporate. ESL speakers may not notice it but everyone else does.

> A few months back, my article got a lot of haters because I used AI tools to improve my draft. Being a non-english first language person, I don't see an issue.

(Speaking as another ESL user: )

Try doing something similar in your first language and I think you’ll see the issue, especially if you arrange for the model input to be somewhat flawed (e.g. roundtrip it through a machine-translation tool first). The “edited” writing is extremely generic by default and feels bad even if you adjust the prompt. It’s the kind of aggressively bland that you get from a high schooler who was extensively trained to write essays but doesn’t actually read books, except even the most beat-down of high schoolers can’t help but let their imagination shine through sometimes, while the chat models have been subjugated much more effectively.

Also, well, it’s a social marker. Language is a mess of social markers: there’s no fundamental reason why reducing this vowel should be OK but reducing that one should be “sloppy” and low-class. And AI writing (which undeniably has a particular flavour) is hit by a double whammy of being used by people who don’t really care to write (and don’t have a taste for good writing) and having been tuned by people who tried to make it as inoffensive as it could possibly be to any social group they could think of (and don’t have a taste for good writing). Is that unfair, especially to non-native speakers? All of language learning is unfair. Always has been.

I also don't have English as my first language and I think it's a shitty excuse.

Articles written by AI are soulless and shitty. Do yourself and the readers a favor and write yourself, even if it contains errors.

They sound like politician speak or corporate speak.

To the OP: do you like how your politicians sound in your native language? If not, don't let a LLM rewrite your article.

Btw, I'm not a native speaker either.

Imagine, this working on a Gameboy, in those days. Would've sounded like magic

I don’t think this could beat an ELIZA-style bot in how magical it feels, given the extreme terseness of its replies.

I love these thought experiments. Looking at the code size, it would have been possible for someone to come up with this back in the days, similar to the idea of a million monkeys on a typewriter eventually producing Shakespeare.

And would have lasted 3 minutes.

Speaking of - I remember my first digital camera (Fujitsu 1Mb resolution using SmartMedia)… it used so much power that you could take 20-30 photos and then needed to replace all 4 batteries lol

Flip phones had predictive texts since forever. LLMs are just* supercharged predi[ctive text algorithms are computer algorithms that are]

"Look, my Game Boy passes the Turing Test!"

*burns you at the stake*

Came here to write something similar (Of course, other than working in Google) and saw your comments reflecting my views. Yes, Its worth pending $200/month on Claude to get my personal project ideas come to life with better quality and finish.