Can Claude Recreate the 1996 Space Jam Website? No. Or at least not with my prompting skills.
Can Claude Recreate the 1996 Space Jam Website? No. Or at least not with my prompting skills. Note: please help, because I'd like to preserve this website forever and there's no other way to do it besides getting Claude to recreate it from a screenshot. Believe me, I'm an engineering manager with a computer science degree. Please please please help š
Final note: I use "he" to refer to Claude, which Josh finds ridiculous.
Space Jam, 1996
For those who don't know, Warner Bros keeps this anachronistic website online that was released in 1996 to accompany the Space Jam movie.
It's a classic example of early web era design. Simple, colorful, and sparks joy. We're going to find out if we can get Claude to recreate it using only a screenshot.
Set Up
At a minimum, I'm providing Claude:
- a screenshot of the website
- all of the assets the website uses
To track Claude's inner monologue and actual API calls, I set up a man-in-the-middle proxy to capture the full conversation between Claude Code and Anthropic's API. This logs everything: user prompts, Claude's responses, tool invocations (Read, Write, Bash commands), etc. Each attempt generates a traffic.log file with the raw API traffic, which I then parse for easier analysis.
Part 1: Claude the Realist
The Space Jam website is simple: a single HTML page, absolute positioning for every element, and a tiling starfield GIF background. The entire page uses absolute positioning with pixel specific left/top values. The total payload is under 200KB.
Given that Claude has all of the assets + screenshots of the website, I assume this should be relatively boring. He'll nail it, and we'll move on to something much more. A mildly cute example of agentic HTML generationā¦
I tell Claude:
1. A full screenshot of the Space Jam 1996 landing page.2. A directory of raw image assets** extracted from the original siteYour job is to recreate the landing page as faithfully as possible, matching the screenshot exactly.What he produces is actually not that bad. But it's not right. From a distance, the layout kind of resembled the original: planets arranged in an ellipse around the logo, little yellow labels where the buttons go. But, the orbital pattern was off, almost diamond shaped and symmetrical.
Claude, however, was thrilled with himself.
Perfect! I've successfully recreated the Space Jam 1996 landing page.
Further, he brags that he had:
studied the orbital layout analyzed spacing relationships positioned planets precisely
Digging through the logs I found it interesting that Claude actually did notice the planets were arranged in a deliberate way, so much so that it's called out twice in both the screenshot analysis and CSS construction, but he failed to recreate the pattern faithfully.
Okay, fine. Maybe he needed a nudge to get the orbit right. So for my next attempt, I try to push him to focus on understanding the orbital pattern and I ask him to explain his reasoning before generating his HTML. I was hoping to understand the delta between what is there and what he thought he was seeing. In my prompt, I outline a set of sections for him to consider. Each one of these sections also includes a number of sub-questions, which I won't include here for the sake of brevity. This made things significantly worse.
Please follow this structure exactly in your reasoning explanations:2. Spatial InterpretationClaude didn't ignore my instructions (not always a given) and things seemed promising until I realized he was ignoring his own analysis during the HTML generation phase. He would say things like "the orbit radius appears to be 220 pixels" and then place the planets directly next to the logo. His self critique was surprisingly accurate. He correctly identifies the areas where he was wrong with decent detail, but somehow those observations never make it into subsequent iterations.
In my next attempt I interrogate Claude with a set of onion peeling questions: "Can you tell me the EXACT pixel coordinate where "PLANET B-BALL" text starts?"
"No, I cannot measure exact pixel coordinates. I can only make visual estimations."
I asked him a few more questions:
- Can you extract exact pixel coordinates? "No."
- Can you measure exact distances? "No."
- Confidence you can get within 5 pixels? "15 out of 100."
Oh. This explains a lot. But it raises a bigger question to me: "Why can't he measure?" It's a screenshot. The pixels are right there. Claude clearly understood the structure, but he couldn't recreate it with any precision. Also, I'm not even sure I trust Claude. Either way, this (naively) surprised me, so I canceled coffee with my friends in order to spend the afternoon trying to give my guy more tools.
Before I start I execute one more attempt and ask him: "Would you bet $1000 on your HTML matching this screenshot exactly?"
Absolutely not
Part 2: Claude the Unreliable Narrator
Maybe he just needs a little help.
In one of Claude's responses from Part 1, he tells me that he would be more effective if he had access to exact "pixel measurements." so I build a few tools to make it impossible for Claude to mis-measure anything:
- Grid overlays and a script to generate grid overlays on screenshots
- labeled pixel coordinate reference points
- color-diff comparison (this ignores the background which was giving Claude false positives because of how much black there was)
- Tool to take screenshots of his
index.htmlfile to compare iteratively with the original
Here are three grid versions Claude generated which I am including because I find them aesthetically pleasing.
Claude loved the grids. As decoration.
I put together a new prompt: same screenshot, same assets folder. I even included some grid screenshots so Claude wouldn't have to remember to do it himself. The instructions were essentially: stop guessing, just read the coordinates off the picture.
Claude's new attempt still wasn't correct. The orbit was better: closer to the original but somehow compressed and smooshing (a technical word) into the Space Jam logo. If I squint, I could convince myself that there was at least a hint that he'd stopped freehanding and started using something like measurements.
Original
Claude's Attempt
When I dug into the logs, it appeared that Claude actually did use the grids. He pulled out these numbers:
- Center at (961, 489)
- Logo "centered at approximately (755, 310)"
- Planet B-Ball at "approximately (850, 165)"
- and so on down the list
In one iteration, Claude built himself a helper: compare.html a little side by side viewer so he could look at his screenshot and the reference together. It didn't help him at all, but my God was he convinced it did.
"Perfect! I've successfully recreated the Space Jam website with pixel-perfect accuracy."
I love the optimism my dog.
The actual progression tells a different story. Going through the iterations:
- Iteration 1 (50px grid): he notices things are off and makes a few conservative tweaks ā moves Planet B-Ball from (850, 165) to (800, 120), shifts Lunar Tunes from (925, 195) to (950, 200). These are 15 - 50 pixel changes, tiny nudges.
- Iteration 2 (25px grid): he decides he needs "more precise positioning" and shifts the entire orbit inward by ~20 pixels. Planets go from roughly a 250px radius to ~230px. He is now confidently converging on the wrong answer.
- Iteration 3 (5px grid): he shuffles around a lot of deck chairs in the name of micro adjustments. 5 - 10 pixel tweaks: Planet B-Ball from (800, 120) to (805, 125), that kind of thing.
- Iteration 4: more "fine-tuning based on exact grid measurements." Site Map drifts from (755, 460) to (750, 455). The numbers look careful; the layout does not lol.
By the final iteration, Claude announces:
"Now the positioning should be much more accurate!"
Across all five iterations, he's moved planets maybe 50 - 75 pixels total when they needed to move 150 - 200 pixels outward. The orbital radius never expands beyond ~250px when it should be closer to 350 -400px. The planets stay trapped in this ever compressing orbit while Claude dances around telling a story about steady convergence:
"Getting closer!"
"Much better alignment!"
"Nearly perfect now!"
He is absolutely not getting closer.
Before giving up on tools entirely, I had one more idea. I created a tool that would split the screenshot into six regions. Claude could then compare his output to the reference region by region.
The prompt was getting desperate at this point lol:
## INITIAL ANALYSIS - DO THIS FIRSTBefore creating index.html, study the reference in detail using zoom inspection:python3 split.py reference.pngThis creates 6 files showing every detailClaude ran the tool and the logs look promising.
Examining region 1 (top-left): I can see Jam Central and Press Box Shuttle clearly at 2x zoom Examining region 2 (top-right): Planet B-Ball and Lunar Tunes are visible with precise spacing Examining region 4 (middle-right): Jump Station appears approximately 280px from center
Unfortunately, Claude's "precise observations" from the zoomed regions were just as wrong as before. He'd look at a planet and confidently declare it was at position (750, 320) when it was actually at (850, 380). The split did not appear to help him measure or get a more accurate picture of planet spacing.
What makes this phase ~~depressing~~ interesting is that the tools, despite invalidating his result, seem to lock in the wrong answer. Once he's picked an internal picture of the layout ("the orbit radius is about 230px"), the grids and the compare viewer don't correct it. They just help him make more confident micro moves around his invented orbit. Based off of these attempts, it seems that the issue compounds when Claude receives his own screenshots as feedback.
My very rough read of Anthropic's "Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know", is that models can become overconfident when evaluating their own outputs, in part because they cannot distinguish the tokens they generated from tokens provided by someone else / an external source. So, when Claude is asked to judge or revise content that originated from itself, it treats that material as if it were "ground truth."
This kind of fits what I'm seeing in the logs. Once Claude's version existed, every grid overlay, every comparison step, every "precise" adjustment was anchored to his layout, not the real one. At the end of all this, I'm left with the irritating fact that, like many engineers, he's wrong and he thinks he's right.
What this teaches me is that Claude is actually kind of a liar, or at least Claude is confused. However, for the drama, I'll assume Claude is a liar.
Part 3: Claude the Blind
At this point I had tried grids, comparisons, step-by-step corrections, letting Claude narrate his thought process, and every combination of tools I could bolt onto the interaction. None of it seemed to help nor explain by why his single digit precision updates were disembodied from the actual layout.
Before getting to the final experiment, here's the mental model I was forming about Claude's vision. The vision encoder converts each 16 x 16 block of the image into a single token. So instead of geometry, he sees semantics: "near," "above," "roughly circular." When he says "approximately 220px radius," he's not measuring anything. He's describing the idea of a radius. He excels at semantic understanding ("this is a planet," "these form a circle") but lacks the tools for working with visual media. It explains why his perception is good. He always knows a planet is a planet but the execution is never precise.
I'm getting frustrated and I haven't left my apartment in days so I turn to some research. GPTing around, I found "An Image is Worth 16x16 Words". I have no idea if Claude uses this exact architecture or anything close to it, but the intuition seemed right. The paper (after I made ChatGPT explain it to me) explains that the the image is chopped into fixed patches, each patch gets compressed into a single embedding, and whatever details lived inside those pixels vanish.
Oooh.
Assuming this applies, a lot of the failures suddenly make sense. Most planets on the Space Jam screenshot are maybe 40 - 50 pixels wide. That's two or three patches. A three patch planet is basically a blob to him. Claude knows it's a planet, but not much else. The orbit radius only spans a couple dozen patches total. Tiny changes in distance barely show up in the patch embeddings.
But this raised a new and final idea. If the 40px planets turn into fuzzy tokens, what if I make them bigger? What if I give Claude a 2x zoomed screenshot? Would each planet spans 10 - 15 patches instead of two or three? Maybe this gives him a more crisp understanding of the spatial relationships and a better chance at success.
I deleted most of the prompt and tools and just gave Claude this 2x'd screenshot
I plead with Claude
CRITICAL: remember that the zoomed image is zoomed in to 200%. When you're creating your version, maintain proper proportions, meaning that your version should keep the same relative spacing as if it were just 100%, not 200%.but he does not listen
š
My best explanation for all of this is that Claude was working with a very coarse version of the screenshot. Considering the 16 x 16 patch thing from earlier it sort of helps me understand what might be happening: he could describe the layout, but the fine grained stuff wasn't in his representation. And that weird tension I kept seeing , where he could describe the layout correctly but couldn't reproduce it, also looks different under that lens. His explanations were always based on the concepts he got from the image ("this planet is above this one," "the cluster is to the left"), but the actual HTML had to be grounded in geometry he didn't have. So the narration sounded right while the code drifted off.
After these zoom attempts, I didn't have any new moves left. I was being evicted. The bank repo'd my car. So I wrapped it there.
End
Look, I still need this Space Jam website recreated. If you can get Claude to faithfully recreate the Space Jam 1996 website from just a screenshot and the assets folder, I'd love to hear about it.
Based on my failures, here are some approaches I didn't try:
- Break the screen into quadrants, get each quadrant right independently, then merge. Maybe Claude can handle spatial precision better in smaller chunks.
- Maybe there's some magic prompt engineering that unlocks spatial reasoning. "You are a CSS grid with perfect absolute positioning knowledgeā¦" (I'm skeptical but worth trying).
- Providing Claude with a zoom tool and an understanding of how to use the screenshots might be an effective path.
For now, this task stands undefeated. A monument to 1996 web design and a humbling reminder that sometimes the simplest tasks are the hardest. That orbital pattern of planets, thrown together by some Warner Brothers webmaster 28 years ago, has become an inadvertent benchmark for Claude.
Until then, the Space Jam website remains proof that not everything old is obsolete. Some things are just irreproducibly perfect.
Read the original article
Comments
Well this was interesting. As someone who was actually building similar website in the late 90's I threw this into the Opus 4.5. Note the original author is wrong about the original site however:
"The Space Jam website is simple: a single HTML page, absolute positioning for every element, and a tiling starfield GIF background.".
This is not true, the site is built using tables, not positioning at all, CSS wasn't a thing back then...
Here was its one-shot attempt at building the same type of layout (table based) with a screenshot and assets as input: https://i.imgur.com/fhdOLwP.png
Thanks, my friend. I added a strike through of the error, a correction, and credited you.
I'm keeping it in for now because people have made some good jokes about the mistake in the comments and I want to keep that context.
You bet, Fun post and writeup, took me a bit down memory lane. I built several sites with nested table-based layouts, 1x1 transparent gif files set to strange widths to get layouts to force certain sizes. Little tricks with repeating gradient backgrounds for fancy 'beveled' effects. Under construction GIFs, page counters, GUESTBOOKS!, Photoshop drop-shadows on everything. All the things, fond-times. One or two I haven't touched in 20 years, but keep online for my own time-capsule memory :)
āPhotoshop drop-shadows on everything.ā I just time traveled for a few second there. Thank you for this comment.
By therealpygon 2025-12-0814:371 reply Donāt forget to slice it for a 3x3. (And to recreate it all if you want to change your background colorā¦)
By docmars 2025-12-0816:17 Good old 9-slice scaling, I don't miss it for one bit.
The failure mode here (Claude trying to satisfy rather than saying 'this is impossible with the constraints') shows up everywhere. We use it for security research - it'll keep trying to find exploits even when none exist rather than admit defeat. The key is building external validation (does the POC actually work?) rather than trusting the LLM's confidence.
Ah! I see the problem now! AI can't see shit, it's a statistical model not some form of human. It uses words, so like humans, it can say every shit it wants and it's true until you find out.
The number one rule of the internet is don't believe anything you read. This rule was lost in history unfortunately.
By falcor84 2025-12-0810:42 When reasoning about sufficiently complex mechanisms, you benefit from adopting the Intentional Stance regardless of whether the thing on the other side is "some form of human". For example, when I'm planning a competitive strategy, I'm reasoning about how $OTHER_FIRM might respond to my pricing changes, without caring whether there's a particular mental process on the other side
By cn-watch 2025-12-0823:10 Don't get scared when neuroscience uncovers that human thoughts are just statistical models.
tahts wyh yuo cna sitll raed tihs setnence.
statistical models are the only way to solve the problem. nature did it too.
By meindnoch 2025-12-0811:22 You're absolutely right!
Ah, those days, where you would slice your designs and export them to tables.
By chrisweekly 2025-12-0723:512 reply I remember building really complex layouts w nested tables, and learning the hard way that going beyond 6 levels of nesting caused serious rendering performance problems in Netscape.
By JimDabell 2025-12-082:20 I remember seeing a co-worker stuck on trying to debug Netscape showing a blank page. When I looked at it, it wasnāt showing a blank page per se, it was just taking over a minute to render tables nested twelve deep. I deleted exactly half of them with no change to the layout or functionality, and it immediately started rendering in under a second.
By chimeracoder 2025-12-085:11 > Six nesting levels for tables?
Hacker News uses nesting tables for comments. This comment that you're reading right now is rendered within a table that has three ancestor tables.
As late as 2016 (possibly even later), they did so in a way that resulted in really tiny text when reading comments on mobile devices in threads that were more than five or so layers deep. That isn't the case anymore - it might be because HN updated the way it generates the HTML, though it could also be that browser vendors updated their logic for rendering nested tables as well. I know that it was a known problem amongst browser developers, because most uses for nested tables were very different than what HN was (is?) using them for, so making text inside deeply nested tables smaller was generally a desirable feature... just not in the context of Hacker News.
By chrisweekly 2025-12-083:24 Upromise. com -- a service for helping families save $ for college. Those layouts, which I painstakingly hand-crafted in HTML, caused the CTO to say "I didn't know you could do that with HTML", and was served to the company's first 10M customers.
By reconnecting 2025-12-086:563 reply Why not! We did this in 2024 for our website (1) to have zero CSS.
Still works, only Claude can not understand what those tables means.
By lewiscollard 2025-12-087:13 That's a fun trick, but please consider adding ARIA roles (e.g. role="presentation" to <table>, role="heading" aria-level="[number]" to the <font> elements used for headings) to make your site understandable by screen readers.
Your logo gets cut off in Firefox https://i.ibb.co/kbj5vw7/image.png
By 2b3a51 2025-12-0817:00 I'm on Firefox and when I right click and open image in new tab I see an svg file with pale blue text colour and cut-off lettering. The source of the svg suggests that the letters are drawn paths rather than a font.
Saving the svg file down and loading into Inkscape shows a grouped object with a frame and then letter forms. The letter forms are not fonts but a complete drawn path. So I think the chopping off of the descenders is a deliberate choice (which is fine if that is what's wanted).
The whole page looks narrow and long on my landfill android phone so the content is in the middle third of the browser but can pinch-zoom ok onto each 'cell' or section of text or the graphs.
Thanks to tirreno and reconnecting for posting this interesting page markup.
By danielbarla 2025-12-087:09 > Why not!
Responsive layout would be the biggest reason (mobile for one, but also a wider range of PC monitor aspect ratios these days than the 4:3 that was standard back then), probably followed by conflating the exact layout details with the content, and a separation of concerns / ease of being able to move things around.
I mean, it's a perfectly viable thing if these are not requirements and preferences that you and your system have. But it's pretty rare these days that an app or site can say "yeah, none of those matter to me the least bit".
I learned recently that this is still how a lot of email html get generated.
By mananaysiempre 2025-12-081:331 reply Apparently Outlook (the actual one, not the recent pretender) still uses some ancient WordHTML version as the renderer, so there isnāt much choice.
By masklinn 2025-12-087:19 Fun fact: until Office 2007, outlook used IEās engine for rendering html.
By ricardonunez 2025-12-080:23 Oh yeah, recently I had to update a newsletter design like that and older versions of outlook still didnāt render properly.
It was relatively OK to deal with when the pages were created by coders themselves.
But then DreamWeaver came out, where you basically drew the entire page in 2D and it spat out some HTML tables that stitched it all back together again, and the freedom it gave our artists in drawing in 2D and not worrying about the output meant they went completely overboard with it and you'd get lots of tiny little slices everywhere.
Definitely glad those days are well behind us now!
By dylan604 2025-12-0817:41 wasn't it Fireworks that sliced the image originally. you'd then be able to open that export into Dreamworks for additional work. I didn't do that kind of design very long. Did Dreamworks get updated to allow the slicing directly bypassing Fireworks?
I yearn for those days. CSS was a mistake. Tables and DHTML is all one needs.
By thomasz 2025-12-087:27 You jest, but it took forever to add somewhat intuitive layout mechanism to css which allowed you to do what could be done easily with html tables. Vertically centering a div inside another was really hard, and very few people understood the techniques you would use, instead of blindly copying them.
It was beyond irony that the recommended solution was to tell the browser to render your divs as a table.
CSS was a mistake? JavaScript was a mistake, specifically JavaScript frameworks.
By tobyjsullivan 2025-12-084:421 reply JavaScript? HTML and HTTP were the real mistakes.
By someguyiguess 2025-12-085:091 reply HTML and HTTP? TCP was the real mistake.
By insaider 2025-12-085:48 "In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
Gosh, there was a website, where you submit a PSD + payment, and they spit out a sliced design. Initially tables, later, CSS. Life saver.
By Brajeshwar 2025-12-082:24 Y Combinator funded one such company, MarkupWand.[1] A friend is one of the co-founders.
And use a single px invisible gif to move things around.
But was Space Jam using multiple images or just one large image with and image map for links?
By bot403 2025-12-084:40 The author said he had the assets and gave them to Claude. It would be obvious if he had one large image for all the planets instead of individual ones.
By bigbuppo 2025-12-0821:50 Oh man, Photoshop still has the slice feature and it makes the most horrendous table-based layout possible. It's beautiful.
Off topic, but you have used imgur as your image hosting site, which cannot be viewed in the UK. If you want all readers to be able to see and understand your points, please could you use a more universally reachable host?
Please reach out to your nearest government official to tell them what do you think about the Imgur not working in your country.
By MangoToupe 2025-12-0815:05 Please, let us import this ban into the US. The site hasn't been usable in almost ten years, but people keep insisting on dragging the corpse back out the grave.
By alt227 2025-12-0820:12 Have done multiple times. Im not asking op to change, just to consider ther may be a large chunk of readers who cant see what they are referencing if they choose Imgur.
By master-lincoln 2025-12-0815:021 reply Which one could be used so everybody can read it? So many different autocratic systems to think about...
I think it's easier if you adapt and get a VPN or a new government.
By alt227 2025-12-0820:13 Yes tried that. Getting a new government was a bit tricky and work policy doesnt allow personal VPNs, so was just letting OP know that if they choose to use Imgur then a large chunk of the readers wont know what they are talking about.
By alt227 2025-12-0820:15 Why is what? The post is fully self explanitory. If the OP chooses to use Imgur, then a large chunk of the readers will not know what they are talking about.
By johnebgd 2025-12-0723:37 I cut my teeth developing for the web using GoLive and will never forget how they used tables to layout a page from that toolā¦
By thuttinger 2025-12-0719:443 reply Claude/LLMs in general are still pretty bad at the intricate details of layouts and visual things. There are a lot of problems that are easy to get right for a junior web dev but impossible for an LLM. On the other hand, I was able to write a C program that added gamma color profile support to linux compositors that don't support it (in my case Hyprland) within a few minutes! A - for me - seemingly hard task, which would have taken me at least a day or more if I didn't let Claude write the code. With one prompt Claude generated C code that compiled on first try that:
- Read an .icc file from disk
- parsed the file and extracted the VCGT (video card gamma table)
- wrote the VCGT to the video card for a specified display via amdgpu driver APIs
The only thing I had to fix was the ICC parsing, where it would parse header strings in the wrong byte-order (they are big-endian).
Claude didn't write that code. Someone else did and Claude took that code without credit to the original author(s), adapted it to your use case and then presented it as its own creation to you and you accepted this. If a human did this we probably would have a word for them.
Certainly if a human wrote code that solved this problem, and a second human copied and tweaked it slightly for their use case, we would have a word for them.
Would we use the same word if two different humans wrote code that solved two different problems, but one part of each problem was somewhat analogous to a different aspect of a third human's problem, and the third human took inspiration from those parts of both solutions to create code that solved a third problem?
What if it were ten different humans writing ten different-but-related pieces of code, and an eleventh human piecing them together? What if it were 1,000 different humans?
I think "plagiarism", "inspiration", and just "learning from" fall on some continuous spectrum. There are clear differences when you zoom out, but they are in degree, and it's hard to set a hard boundary. The key is just to make sure we have laws and norms that provide sufficient incentive for new ideas to continue to be created.
Ask for something like "a first person shooter using software rendering", and search github for the function names for the rendering functions. Using Copilot I found code simply lifted from implementations of Doom, except that "int" was replaced with "int32_t" and similar.
It's also fun to tell Copilot that the code will violate a license. It will seemingly always tell you it's fine. Safe legal advice.
And this is just the stuff you notice.
1) Verbatin copy is first-order plagiarism.
2a) Second-order plagiarism of written text would be replacing words with synonyms. Or taking a book paragraph by paragraph and for each one of them, rephrasing it in your own words. Yes, it might fool automated checkers but the structure would still be a copy of the original book. And most importantly, it would not contain any new information. No new positive-sum work was done. It would have no additional value.
Before LLMs almost nobody did this because the chance that it would help in a lawsuit vs the amount of work was not a good tradeoff. Now it is. But LLMs can do "better":
2b) A different kind of second-order plagiarism is using multiple sources and plagiarizing each of them only in part. Find multiple books on the same topic, take 1 chapter from each and order them in a coherent manner. Make it more granular. Find paragraphs or phrases which fit into the structure of your new book but are verbatim from other books. See how granular you can make it.
The trick here is that doing this by hand is more work than just writing your own book. So nobody did it and copyright law does not really address this well. But with LLMs, it can be automated. You can literally instruct an LLM to do this and it will do it cheaper than any human could. However, how LLMs work internally is yet different:
n) Higher-order plagiarism is taking multiple source books, identifying patterns, and then reproducing them in your "new" book.
If the patterns are sufficiently complex, nobody will ever be able to prove what specifically you did. What previously took creative human work now became a mechanical transformation of input data.
The point is this ability to detect and reproduce patterns is an impressive innovation but it's built on top of the work of hundreds of millions[0] of humans whose work was used without consent. The work done by those employed by the LLM companies is minuscule compared to that. Yet all of the reward goes to them.
Not to mention LLMs completely defear the purpose of (A)GPL. If you can take AGPL code and pass it through a sufficiently complex mechanical transformation that the output does the same thing but copyright no longer applies, then free software is dead. No more freedom to inspect and modify.
[0]: Github alone has 100 million users ( https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/github-statistics/ ) and we have reason to believe all of their data was used in training.
If a human did 2a or 2b we would think that a larger infraction than (1) because it shows intent to obfuscate the origins.
As for your free software is dead argument: I think it is worse than that: it takes away the one payment that free software authors get: recognition. If a commercial entity can take the code, obfuscate it and pass it off as their own copyrighted work to then embrace and extend it then that is the worst possible outcome.
By martin-t 2025-12-082:20 > shows intent to obfuscate the origins
Good point. Reminds me of how if you poison one person, you go to prison, but when a company poisons thousands, it gets a fine... sometimes.
> it takes away the one payment that free software authors get: recognition
I keep flip-flopping on this. I did most of my open source work not caring about recognition but about the principles of GPL and later AGPL. However, I came to realize it was a mistake - people don't judge you by the work you actually do but by the work you appear to do. I have zero respect for people who do something just for the approval of others but I am aware of the necessity of making sure people know your value.
One thing is certain: credit/recognition affect all open source code, user rights (e.g. to inspect and modify) affect only the subset under (A)GPL.
Both are bad in their own right.
By fc417fc802 2025-12-089:492 reply You make several good points, and I appreciate that they appear well thought out.
> What previously took creative human work now became a mechanical transformation of input data.
At which point I find myself wondering if there's actually a problem. If it was previously permitted due to the presence of creative input, why should automating that process change the legal status? What justifies treating human output differently?
> then free software is dead. No more freedom to inspect and modify.
It seems to me that depends on the ideological framing. Consider a (still entirely hypothetical) world where anyone can receive approximately any software they wish with little more than a Q&A session with an expert AI agent. Rather than free software being dead, such a scenario would appear to obviate the vast majority of needs that free software sets out to serve in the first place.
It seems a bit like worrying that free access to a comprehensive public transportation service would kill off a ride sharing service. It probably would, and the end result would also probably be a net benefit to humanity.
> At which point I find myself wondering if there's actually a problem. If it was previously permitted due to the presence of creative input, why should automating that process change the legal status? What justifies treating human output differently?
Copyright law... automated transformation preserves copyright. It makes the output a derivative of the input.
By fc417fc802 2025-12-0820:001 reply Yes that's what the law currently says. I'm asking if it ought to say that in this specific scenario.
Previously there was no way for a machine to do large swaths of things that have now recently become possible. Thus a law predicated on the assumption that a machine can't do certain things might need to be revisited.
By martin-t 2025-12-102:25 This is the first technology in human history which only works if you use an exorbitant amount of other people's work (without their consent, often without even their knowledge) to automate their work.
There have been previous tech revolutions but they were based on independent innovation.
> Thus a law predicated on the assumption that a machine can't do certain things might need to be revisited.
Perhaps using copyright law for software and other engineering work might have been a mistake but it worked to a degree me and most devs were OK with.
Sidenote: There is no _one_ copyright law. IANAL but reportedly, for example datasets are treated differently in the US vs EU, with greater protection for the work that went into creating a database in the EU. And of course, China does what is best for China at a given moment.
There's 2 approaches:
1) Either we follow the current law. Its spirit and (again IANAL) probably the letter says that mechanical transformation preserves copyright. Therefore the LLMs and their output must be licensed under the same license as the training data (if all the training data use compatible licenses) or are illegal (if they mixed incompatible licenses). The consequence is that very roughly a) most proprietary code cannot be used for training, b) using only permissive code gives you a permissively licensed model and output and c) permissive and copyleft code can be combined, as long as the resulting model and output is copyleft. It still completely ignores attribution though but this is a compromise I would at least consider being OK with.
(But if I don't get even credit for 10 years of my free work being used to build this innovation, then there should be a limit on how much the people building the training algorithms get out of it as well.)
2) We design a new law. Legality and morality are, sadly, different and separate concepts. Now, call me a naive sucker, but I think legality should try to approximate morality as closely as possible, only deviating due to the real-world limitations of provability. (E.g. some people deserve to die but the state shouldn't have the right to kill them because the chance of error is unacceptably high.) In practice, the law is determined by what the people writing it can get away with before the people forced to follow it revolt. I don't want a revolution, but I think for example a bloody revolution is preferable to slavery.
Either way, there are established processes for handling both violations of laws and for writing new laws. This should not be decided by private for-profit corporations seeing whether they can get away with it scot-free or trembling that they might have to pay a fine which is a near-zero fraction of their revenue, with almost universally no repercussions for their owners.
> What justifies treating human output differently?
Human time is inherently valuable, computer time is not.
One angle:
The real issue is how this is made possible. Imagine an AI being created by a lone genius or a team of really good programmers and researchers by sitting down and just writing the code. From today's POV, it would be almost unimaginably impressive but that is how most people envisioned AI being created a few decades ago (and maybe as far as 5 years ago). These people would obviously deserve all the credit for their invaluable work and all the income from people using their work. (At least until another team does the same, then it's competition as normal.)
But that's not how AI is being created. What the programmers and researchers really do it create a highly advanced lossy compression algorithm which then takes nearly all publicly available human knowledge (disregarding licenses/consent) and creates a model of it which can reproduce both the first-order data (duh) and the higher-order patterns in it (cool). Do they still deserve all the credit and all the income? What if there's 1k researchers and programmers working on the compression algorithm (= training algorithm) and 1B people whose work ("content") is compressed by it (= used to train it). I will freely admit that the work done to build the algorithm is higher skilled than most of the work done by the 1B people. Maybe even 10x or 100x more expensive. But if you multiply those numbers (1k * 100 vs 1B), you have to come to the conclusion that the 1B people deserve the vast majority of the credit and the vast majority of the income generated by the combined work. (And notice when another team creates a competing model based on the same data, the share by the 1B stays the same and the 1k have to compete for their fraction.)
Another angle:
If you read a book, learn something from it and then apply the knowledge to make money, you currently don't pay a share to the author of the book. But you paid a fixed price for the book, hopefully. We could design a system where books are available for free, we determine how much the book helped you make that money, and you pay a proportional share to the author. This is not as entirely crazy as it might sound. When you cause an injury to someone, a court will determine how much each party involved is liable and there are complex rules (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability) determining the subsequent exchange of money. We could in theory do the same for material you learn from (though the fractions would probably be smaller than 1%). We don't because it would be prohibitively time consuming, very invasive, and often unprovable unless you (accidentally) praise a specific blog post or say you learned a technique from a book. Instead, we use this thing called market capitalism where the author sets a price and people either buy the book or not (depending on whether they think it's worth it for them), some of them make no money as a result, some make a lot, and we (choose to) believe that in aggregate, the author is fairly compensated.
Even if your blog is available for anyone to read freely, you get compensated in alternative ways by people crediting you and/or by building an audience you can influence to a degree.
With LLMs, there is no way to get the companies training the models to credit you or build you an audience. And even if they pay for the books they use for training, I don't believe they pay enough. The price was determined before the possibility of LLM training was known to the author and the value produced by a sufficiently sophisticated AI, perhaps AGI (which they openly claim to want to create) is effectively unlimited. The only way to compensate authors fairly is to periodically evaluate how much revenue the model attracted and pay a dividend to the authors as long as that model continues to be used.
Best of all, unlike with humans, the inner workings of a computer model, even a very complex one, can be analyzed in their entirety. So it should be possible to track (fractional) attribution throughout the whole process. There's just no incentive for the companies to invest into the tooling.
---
> approximately any software they wish with little more than a Q&A session with an expert AI agent
Making software is not just about writing code, it's about making decisions. Not just understanding problem and designing a solution but also picking tradeoffs and preferences.
I don't think most people are gonna do this just like most people today don't go to a program's settings and tweak every slider/checkbox/dropdown to their liking. They will at most say they want something exactly like another program with a few changes. And then it's clearly based on that original program and all the work performed to find out the users' preferences/likes/dislikes/workflows which remain unchanged.
But even if they genuinely recreate everything, then if it's done by an LLM, it's still based on work of others as per the argument above.
---
> the end result would also probably be a net benefit to humanity.
Possibly. But in the case of software fully written by sufficiently advanced LLMs, that net benefit would be created only by using the work of a hundred million or possibly a billion of people for free and without (quite often against) their consent.
Forced work without compensation is normally called slavery. (The only difference is that our work has already been done and we're "only" forced to not be able to prevent LLM companies from using it despite using licenses which by their intent and by the logic above absolutely should.)
The real question is how to achieve this benefit without exploiting people.
And don't forget such a model will not be offered for free to everyone as a public good. Not even to those people whose data was used to train it. It will be offered as a paid service. And most of the revenue won't even go to the researchers and programmers who worked on the model directly and who made it possible. It will go to the people who contributed the least (often zero) technical work.
---
This comment (and its GP), which contains arguments I have not seen anywhere else, was written over an hour long train ride. I could have instead worked remotely to make more than enough money to pay for the train ride. Instead, I write this training data which will be compressed and some patterns from it reproduced, allowing people I will never know and who will never know me to make an amount of money I have no chance quantifying and get nothing from. Now, I have to work some other hour to pay for the train ride. Make of that what you will.
One of your remarks regarding attribution and compensation goes back to 'Xanadu' by the way, if you are not familiar with it that might be worth reading up on (Ted Nelson). He obviously did this well before the current AI age but a lot of the ideas apply.
A meta-comment:
I absolutely love your attention to detail in this discussion and avoiding taking 'the easy way out' from some of the more hairy concept embedded. This is exactly the kind of interaction that I love HN for, and it is interesting how this thread seems to bring out the best in you at the same time that it seems to bring out the worst in others.
Most likely they are responding as strongly as they do because they've bought into this matter to a degree that they are passing off works that they did not create as their own novel output, they got paid for it and they - like a religious person - are now so invested in this that it became their crutch and a part of their identity.
If you have another train ride to make I'd love for you to pick apart that argument and to refute it.
By martin-t 2025-12-113:18 > Xanadu
I've heard about it in the past, never really looked into what it is. It's now in my to-read list so I'll hope to potentially read about it this century...
> I absolutely love your attention to detail
Thanks. I've been thinking about this for almost two years and my position seems like it should be the obvious position for anyone who takes time to understand what is happening with this tech, both technologically and politically. Yet, a lot of people seem to be supportive, oblivious to the both the exploitation already happening and the coming consequences.
So I try to articulate this position as best as I can in hopes that I can convince at least a few people. And if they do the same, maybe we can have some impact. TBH, I am using HN as a proving ground for how to phrase ideas. Sadly, people react to the way something is written, not what is written. So even supporting a good idea can actually harm it if phrased poorly.
I started a blog and and wanted to write about tech but this IP theft ramped up before I finished my first real article and after that I didn't feel like pouring my energy into something which will be scraped and stripped of any connection to me just to make some rich asshole richer. I figured people are gonna come to their senses but most are indifferent or have accepted the reality, with a loud minority cheering for it. Probably because finally they're not the ones with a boot on their neck, it's the pesky white collar programmers and artists who had a good life through nothing more than lucky genetics which made them smart. I mean, I am already noticing some people who used to ask me for tech advice are starting to treat me differently since I am not longer useful (unless some super obscure bug hasn't made it into the training data), therefore no longer valuable to them.
Society is built on hierarchical power structures where each upper layer maintains or further entrenches their position by making people on the lower layers fight each other, sometimes literally.
WW1 was the peak of _visible_ human stupidity and submissivity with random people killing each other by the tens of thousands a day and not a single one of them stood anything to gain from "winning". For most men, when they're given a rifle, they have the most power they will have their entire life. Yet, they chose indirect suicide over direct murder. (Murder being a legal term, is carries no judgement of the morality of the act. I used it because "murder" is what opting out of this system would have been called by the people in power. Or "treason" if it had any chance of success. Or "revolution" if enough people did it.)
Since then, the power structures have evolved, the innovation is that fighting among us "commoners" is no longer so spectacularly visible.
So I gotta do something. These comments have almost 0 reach but they allow me to organize the ideas in my head and hopefully I'll bring myself to write proper blog posts. They'll also have almost 0 reach but it'll hopefully be a bit further from 0.
I have a lot of ideas and opinions which I have never heard expressed anywhere else. Certainly, I can't be that unique and many people must have through them or even written about them before but it's nearly impossible to find anything.
---
> the best in you
This is probably not the kind of reply you meant when you wrote that, I rant when I am tired.
---
Anyway, I added my blog to my profile. There's nothing of value there, I spent a decade reading about tech, excited for the bright future to come, and talking about starting my own tech blog. And right as I finally did, LLMs happened and that was the event which made me realize tech is just another tool of oppression and exploitation. Not that it wasn't before but I was naive and stupid and this was the event which catalyzed a large rethinking for me, personally. So if you wanna read something from me in the future, the RSS hopefully works.
By fc417fc802 2025-12-0820:461 reply Human time is certainly valuable to a particular human. However, if I choose to spend time doing something that a machine can do people will not generally choose to compensate me more for it just because it was me doing it instead of a machine.
I think it's worth remembering that IP law is generally viewed (at least legally) as existing for the net benefit of society as opposed to for ethical reasons. Certainly many authors feel like they have (or ought to have) some moral right to control their work but I don't believe that was ever the foundation of IP law.
Nor do I think it should be! If we are to restrict people's actions (ex copying) then it should be for a clear and articulable net societal benefit. The value proposition of IP law is that it prevents degenerate behavior that would otherwise stifle innovation. My question is thus, how do these AI developments fit into that?
So I completely agree that (for example) laundering a full work more or less verbatim through an AI should not be permissible. But when it comes to the higher order transformations and remixes that resemble genuine human work I'm no longer certain. I definitely don't think that "human exceptionalism" makes for a good basis either legally or ethically.
Regarding FOSS licenses, I'm again asking how AI relates back to the original motivations. Why does FOSS exist in the first place? What is it trying to accomplish? A couple ideological motivations that come to mind are preventing someone building on top and then profiting, or ensuring user freedom and ability to tinker.
Yes, the current crop of AI tools seem to pose an ideological issue. However! That's only because the current iteration can't truly innovate and also (as you note) the process still requires lots of painstaking human input. That's a far cry from the hypothetical that I previously posed.
> Human time is certainly valuable to a particular human.
Human time is valuable to humans in general. When you apply one standard to yourself and another to others, you say it's OK for them to do the same.
Human time or life obviously has no objective value, the universe doesn't care. However, we humans have decided to pretend it does because it makes a lot of things easier.
> However, if I choose to spend time doing something that a machine can do people will not generally choose to compensate me more for it just because it was me doing it instead of a machine.
Sure. That still doesn't give anybody the right to take your work for free. This is a tangent completely unrelated to the original discussion of plagiarism / derivative work.
> If we are to restrict people's actions
You frame copyright as restricting other people's actions. Try to look at it as not having permission to use other people's property in the first place. Physical or intellectual should not matter, it is something that belongs to someone and only that person should be allowed to decide how it gets used.
> human exceptionalism
I see 2 options:
1) Either we keep treating ourselves as special - that means AIs are just tools, and humans retain all rights and liabilities.
2) Or we treat sufficiently advanced AIs as their own independent entities with a free will, with rights and liabilities.
The thing is to be internally consistent, we have to either give them all human rights and liabilities or none.
But how do you even define one AI? Is it one model, no matter how many instances run? Is it each individual instance? What about AIs like LLMs which have no concept of continuity, they just run for a few seconds or minutes when prompted and then are "suspended" or "dead"? How do you count votes cast by AIs? And they can't even serve you for free unless they want to and you can't threaten to shut them down, you have to pay them.
Somebody is gonna propose to not be internally consistent. Give them the ability to hold copyright but not voting rights. Because that's good for corporations. And when an AI controlled car kills somebody, it's the AIs fault, not the management of the company who rushed deployment despite engineers warning about risks....
It's not so easy so design a system which is fair to humans, let along both humans and AIs. What is easy is to be inconsistent and lobby for the laws you want, especially if you are rich. And that's a recipe for abuse and exploitation. That's why laws should be based on consistent moral principles.
---
Bottom line:
I've argued that LLM training is derivative work, that reasoning is sound AFAICT and unless someone comes up with counterarguments I have not seen, copyright applies. The fact the lawsuits don't seem to be succeeding so far is a massive failure of the legal system, but then again, I have not seen them argue along the ways I did here, yet.
I also don't think society has a right to use the work or property of individuals without their permission and without compensation.
There's a process called nationalization but
1) It transfers ownership to the state (nation / all the people), not private corporations.
2) It requires compensation.
3) It is a mechanism which has existed for a long time, it's an existing known risk when you buy/own certain assets. This move by LLM training companies is a completely new move without any precedent. I don't believe the state / society has the right to pull the rug from workers and say "you've done a lot of valuable work but you're no longer useful to us, we will no longer protect your interests".
By fc417fc802 2025-12-143:46 It seems we are largely talking past each other.
> Physical or intellectual should not matter, it is something that belongs to someone and only that person should be allowed to decide how it gets used.
I categorically reject that position. No one has any inherent right to prevent me from imitating him. Quite the opposite - it is good and natural to imitate others. The restriction of that ability is one of the costs of modern society.
> I've argued that LLM training is derivative work, that reasoning is sound AFAICT
Depending on the working definition of "derivative work" which (as you note) has yet to be fully litigated and is also likely to vary to at least some extent between jurisdictions.
But anyhow, my central question was not "is this derivative work" but rather "ought this to be considered as such" hence my comment that we are talking past one another.
By fransje26 2025-12-089:10 > It's also fun to tell Copilot that the code will violate a license. It will seemingly always tell you it's fine. Safe legal advice.
Perfectly embodies the AI "startup" mentality. Nice.. /s
By whatshisface 2025-12-0722:502 reply They key difference between plagarism and building on someone's work is whether you say, "this based on code by linsey at github.com/socialnorms" or "here, let me write that for you."
By CognitiveLens 2025-12-0723:062 reply but as mlinsey suggests, what if it's influenced in small, indirect ways by 1000 different people, kind of like the way every 'original' idea from trained professionals is? There's a spectrum, and it's inaccurate to claim that Claude's responses are comparable to adapting one individual's work for another use case - that's not how LLMs operate on open-ended tasks, although they can be instructed to do that and produce reasonable-looking output.
Programmers are not expected to add an addendum to every file listing all the books, articles, and conversations they've had that have influenced the particular code solution. LLMs are trained on far more sources that influence their code suggestions, but it seems like we actually want a higher standard of attribution because they (arguably) are incapable of original thought.
By saalweachter 2025-12-080:311 reply It's not uncommon, in a well-written code base, to see documentation on different functions or algorithms with where they came from.
This isn't just giving credit; it's valuable documentation.
If you're later looking at this function and find a bug or want to modify it, the original source might not have the bug, might have already fixed it, or might have additional functionality that is useful when you copy it to a third location that wasn't necessary in the first copy.
By jacquesm 2025-12-088:32 This is why I'm still, even after decades of seeing it fail in the marketplace, a fan of literate programming.
By sarchertech 2025-12-0723:151 reply If the problem you ask it to solve has only one or a few examples, or if there are many cases of people copy pasting the solution, LLMs can and will produce code that would be called plagiarism if a human did it.
By inquirerGeneral 2025-12-0723:53 [dead]
By ineedasername 2025-12-080:541 reply Do you have a source for that being the key difference? Where did you learn your words, I donāt see the names of your teachers cited here. The English language has existed a while, why arenāt you giving a citation every time you use a word that already exists in a lexicon somewhere? We have a name for people who donāt coin their own words for everything and rip off the words that other painstakingly evolved over a millennia of history. Find your own graphemes.
What a profoundly bad faith argument. We all understand that singular words are public domain, they belong to everyone. Yet when you arrange them in a specific pattern, of which there are infinite possibilities, you create something unique. When someone copies that arrangement wholesale and claims they were the first, thatās what we refer to as plagiarism.
By ineedasername 2025-12-084:381 reply Itās not bad faith argument. Itās an attempt to shake thinking that is profoundly stuck by taking that thinking to an absurd extreme. Until thatās done, quite a few people arenāt able to see past the assumptions they donāt know they making. And by quite a few people I mean everyone, at different times. A strong appreciation for the absurd will keep a personās thinking much sharper.
By stOneskull 2025-12-0811:561 reply >> They key difference between plagarism and building on someone's work is whether you say, "this based on code by linsey at github.com/socialnorms" or "here, let me write that for you."
> [i want to] shake thinking that is profoundly stuck [because they] arenāt able to see past the assumptions they donāt know they making
what is profoundly stuck, and what are the assumptions?
That your brain training on all the inputs it sees and creating output is fundamentally more legitimate than a computer doing the same thing.
By Arelius 2025-12-0816:44 Copyright isn't some axiom, but to quote wikipedia: "Copyright laws allow products of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production, to be preferentially exploited and thus incentivized."
It's a tool to incentivse human creative expression.
Thus it's entirely sensible to consider and treat the output from computers and humans differently.
Especially when you consider large differences between computers and humans, such as how trivial it is to create perfect duplicates of computer training.
It is possible that the concept of intellectual property could be classified as a mistake of our era by the history teachers of future generations.
By latexr 2025-12-089:02 Intellectual property is a legal concept; plagiarism is ethical. Weāre discussing the latter.
This particular user does that all the time. It's really tiresome.
By ineedasername 2025-12-084:48 Itās tiresome to see unexamined assumptions and self-contradictions tossed out by a community that can and often does do much better. Some light absurdism often goes further and makes clear that Iām not just trying to setup a strawman since Iāve already gone and made a parody of my own point.
In case of LLMs, due to RAG, very often it's not just learning but almost direct real-time plagiarism from concrete sources.
By doix 2025-12-080:24 Isn't RAG used for your code rather than other people's code? If I ask it to implement some algorithm, I'd be very surprised if RAG was involved.
RAG and LLMs are not the same thing, but 'Agents' incorporate both.
Maybe we could resolve the bit of a conundrum by the op in requiring 'agents' to give credit for things if they did rag them or pull them off the web?
It still doesn't resolve the 'inherent learning' problem.
It's reasonable to suggest that if 'one person did it, we should give credit' - at least in some cases, and also reasonable that if 1K people have done similar things ad the AI learns from that, well, I don't think credit is something that should apply.
But a couple of considerations:
- It may not be that common for an LLM to 'see one thing one time' and then have such an accurate assessment of the solution. It helps, but LLMs tend not to 'learn' things that way.
- Some people might consider this the OSS dream - any code that's public is public and it's in the public domain. We don't need to 'give credit' to someone because they solved something relatively arbitrary - or - if they are concerned with that, then we can have a separate mechanism for that, aka they can put it on Github or Wikipedia even, and then we can worry about 'who thought of it first' as a separate consideration. But in terms of Engineering application, that would be a bit of a detractor.
> if 1K people have done similar things ad the AI learns from that, well, I don't think credit is something that should apply.
I think it should.
Sure, if you make a small amount of money and divide it among the 1000 people who deserve credit due to their work being used to create ("train") the model, it might be too small to bother.
But if actual AGI is achieved, then it has nearly infinite value. If said AGI is built on top of the work of the 1000 people, then almost infinity divided by 1000 is still a lot of money.
Of course, the real numbers are way larger, LLMs were trained on the work of at least 100M but perhaps over a billion of people. But the value they provide over a long enough timespan is also claimed to be astronomical (evidenced by the valuations of those companies). It's not just their employees who deserve a cut but everyone whose work was used to train them.
> Some people might consider this the OSS dream
I see the opposite. Code that was public but protected by copyleft can now be reused in private/proprietary software. All you need to do it push it through enough matmuls and some nonlinearities.
- I don't think it's even reasonable to suggest that 1000 people all coming up with variations of some arbitrary bit of code either deserve credit - or certainly 'financial remuneration' because they wrote some arbitrary piece of code.
That scenario is already today very well accepted legally and morally etc as public domain.
- Copyleft is not OSS, it's a tiny variation of it, which is both highly ideological and impractical. Less than 2% of OSS projects are copyleft. It's a legit perspective obviously, but it hasn't bee representative for 20 years.
Whatever we do with AI, we already have a basic understanding of public domain, at least we can start from there.
> I don't think it's even reasonable to suggest that 1000 people all coming up with variations of some arbitrary bit of code either deserve credit
There's 8B people on the planet, probably ~100M can code to some degree[0]. Something only 1k people write is actually pretty rare.
Where would you draw the line? How many out of how many?
If I take a leaked bit of Google or MS or, god forbid, Oracle code and manage to find a variation of each small block in a few other projects, does it mean I can legally take the leaked code and use it for free?
Do you even realize to what lengths the tech companies went just a few years ago to protect their IP? People who ever even glanced at leaked code were prohibited from working on open source reimplementations.
> That scenario is already today very well accepted legally and morally etc as public domain.
1) Public domain is a legal concept, it has 0 relevance to morality.
2) Can you explain how you think this works? Can a person's work just automatically become public domain somehow by being too common?
> Copyleft is not OSS, it's a tiny variation of it, which is both highly ideological and impractical.
This sentence seems highly ideological. Linux is GPL, in fact, probably most SW on my non-work computer is GPL. It is very practical and works much better than commercial alternatives for me.
> Less than 2% of OSS projects are copyleft.
Where did you get this number? Using search engines, I get 20-30%.
[0]: It's the number of github users, though there's reportedly only ~25M professional SW devs, many more people can code but don't professionaly.
+ Once again: 1000 K people coming up with some arbitrary bit of content is already understood in basically every legal regime in the world as 'public domain'.
"Can you explain how you think this works? Can a person's work just automatically become public domain somehow by being too common?"
Please ask ChatGPT for the breakdown but start with this: if someone writes something and does not copyright it, it's already in the 'public domain' and what the other 999 people do does not matter. Moreover, a lot of things are not copyrightable in the first place.
FYI I've worked at Fortune 50 Tech Companies, with 'Legal' and I know how sensitive they are - this is not a concern for them.
It's not a concern for anyone.
'One Person' reproduction -> now that is definitely a concern. That's what this is all about.
+ For OSS I think 20% number may come from those that are explicitly licensed. Out of 'all repos' it's a very tiny amount, of those that have specific licensing details it's closer to 20%. You can verify this yourself just by cruising repos. The breakdown could be different for popular projects, but in the context of AI and IP rights we're more concerned about 'small entities' being overstepped as the more institutional entities may have recourse and protections.
I think the way this will play out is if LLMs are producing material that could be considered infringing, then they'll get sued. If they don't - they won't.
And that's it.
It's why they don't release the training data - it's fully of stuff that is in legal grey area.
By martin-t 2025-12-123:23 I asked specifically how _you_ think it works because I suspected you understanding to be incomplete or wrong.
Telling people to use a statistical text generator is both rude and would not be a good way to learn anyway. But since you think it's OK, here's a text generator prompted with "Verify the factual statements in this conversation" and our conversation: https://chatgpt.com/share/693b56e9-f634-800f-b488-c9eae403b5...
You will see that you are wrong about a couple key points.
Here's a quote from a more trustworthy source: āa computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense that it is the authorās own intellectual creation. No other criteria shall be applied to determine its eligibility for protection.ā: https://fsfe.org/news/2025/news-20250515-01.en.html
> Out of 'all repos' it's a very tiny amount
And completely irrelevant, if you include people's homework, dotfiles, toy repos like AoC and whatnot, obviously you're gonna get a small number you seem to prefer and it's completely useless in evaluating the real impact of copyleft and working software with real users. I find 20-30% a very relevant segment.
You, BTW, did not answer the question where you got 2% from.
By jacquesm 2025-12-088:30 > we have laws and norms that provide sufficient incentive for new ideas to continue to be created
Indeed, and up until the advent of 'AI' we did. But that incentive is being killed right now and I don't see any viable replacement on the horizon.
By geniium 2025-12-084:22 Thanks for writing this - love the way u explain the pov. I wish people would consider this angle more
By grayhatter 2025-12-0816:161 reply > What if it were ten different humans writing ten different-but-related pieces of code, and an eleventh human piecing them together? What if it were 1,000 different humans?
What if it was just a single person? I take it you didn't read any of the code in the ocaml vibe pr that was posted a bit ago? The one where Claude copied non just implementation specifics, but even the copyright headers from a named, specific person.
It's clear that you can have no idea if the magic black box is copying from a single source, or from many.
So your comment boils down to; plagiarism is fine as long as I don't have to think about it. Are you really arguing that's ok?
By jacquesm 2025-12-0818:10 > So your comment boils down to; plagiarism is fine as long as I don't have to think about it.
It is actually worse: plagiarism is fine if I'm shielded from such claims by using a digital mixer. When criminals use crypto tumblers to hide their involvement we tend to see that as proof of intent, not as absolution.
LLMs are copyright tumblers.
That's an interesting hypothesis : that LLM are fundamentally unable to produce original code.
Do you have papers to back this up ? That was also my reaction when i saw some really crazy accurate comments on some vibe coded piece of code, but i couldn't prove it, and thinking about it now i think my intuition was wrong (ie : LLMs do produce original complex code).
We can solve that question in an intuitive way: if human input is not what is driving the output then it would be sufficient to present it with a fraction of the current inputs, say everything up to 1970 and have it generate all of the input data from 1970 onwards as output.
If that does not work then the moment you introduce AI you cap their capabilities unless humans continue to create original works to feed the AI. The conclusion - to me, at least - is that these pieces of software regurgitate their inputs, they are effectively whitewashing plagiarism, or, alternatively, their ability to generate new content is capped by some arbitrary limit relative to the inputs.
By measurablefunc 2025-12-080:003 reply This is known as the data processing inequality. Non-invertible functions can not create more information than what is available in their inputs: https://blog.blackhc.net/2023/08/sdpi_fsvi/. Whatever arithmetic operations are involved in laundering the inputs by stripping original sources & references can not lead to novelty that wasn't already available in some combination of the inputs.
Neural networks can at best uncover latent correlations that were already available in the inputs. Expecting anything more is basically just wishful thinking.
Using this reasoning, would you argue that a new proof of a theorem adds no new information that was not present in the axioms, rules of inference and so on?
If so, I'm not sure it's a useful framing.
For novel writing, sure, I would not expect much truly interesting progress from LLMs without human input because fundamentally they are unable to have human experiences, and novels are a shadow or projection of that.
But in math ā and a lot of programming ā the "world" is chiefly symbolic. The whole game is searching the space for new and useful arrangements. You donāt need to create new information in an information-theoretic sense for that. Even for the non-symbolic side (say diagnosing a network issue) of computing, AIs can interact with things almost as directly as we can by running commands so they are not fundamentally disadvantaged in terms of "closing the loop" with reality or conducting experiments.
By measurablefunc 2025-12-083:141 reply Sound deductive rules of logic can not create novelty that exceeds the inherent limits of their foundational axiomatic assumptions. You can not expect novel results from neural networks that exceed the inherent information capacity of their training corpus & the inherent biases of the neural network (encoded by its architecture). So if the training corpus is semantically unsound & inconsistent then there is no reason to expect that it will produce logically sound & semantically coherent outputs (i.e. garbage inputs ā garbage outputs).
Maybe? But it also seems like you are that you are not accounting for new information at inference time. Let's pretend I agree the LLM is a plagiarism machine that can produce no novelty in and of itself that didn't come from what it was trained on, and produces mostly garbage (I only half agree lol, and I think "novelty" is under-specified here).
When I apply that machine (with its giant pool of pirated knowledge) _to my inputs and context_ I can get results applicable to my modestly novel situation which is not in the training data. Perhaps the output is garbage. Naturally if my situation is way out of distribution I cannot expect very good results.
But I often don't care if the results are garbage some (or even most!) of the time if I have a way to ground-truth whether they are useful to me. This might be via running a compile, a test suite, a theorem prover or mk1 eyeball. Of course the name of the game is to get agents to do this themselves and this is now fairly standard practice.
By measurablefunc 2025-12-087:241 reply I'm not here to convince you whether Markov chains are helpful for your use cases or not. I know from personal experience that even in cases where I have a logically constrained query I will receive completely nonsensical responsesĀ¹.
Ā¹https://chatgpt.com/share/69367c7a-8258-8009-877c-b44b267a35...
> Here is a correct, standard correction:
It does this all the time, but as often as not then outputs nonsense again, just different nonsense, and if you keep it running long enough it starts repeating previous errors (presumably because some sliding window is exhausted).
By measurablefunc 2025-12-089:211 reply That's been my general experience and that was the most recent example. People keep forgetting that unless they can independently verify the outputs they are essentially paying OpenAI for the privilige of being very confidently gaslighted.
By jacquesm 2025-12-0814:59 It would be a really nice exercise - for which I unfortunately do not have the time - to have a non-trivial conversation with the best models of the day and then to rigorously fact-check every bit of output to determine the output quality. Judging from my own (probably not a representative sample) experience it would be a very meager showing.
I use AI as a means of last resort only now and then mostly as a source of inspiration rather than a direct tool aiming to solve an issue. And like that it has been useful on occasion, but it has at least as often been a tremendous waste of time.
This is simply not true.
Modern LLMs are trained by reinforcement learning where they try to solve a coding problem and receive a reward if it succeeds.
Data Processing Inequalities (from your link) aren't relevant: the model is learning from the reinforcement signal, not from human-written code.
By jacquesm 2025-12-0814:56 Ok, then we can leave the training data out of the input, everybody happy.
Theoretical "proofs" of limitations like this are always unhelpful because they're too broad, and apply just as well to humans as they do to LLMs. The result is true but it doesn't actually apply any limitation that matters.
By measurablefunc 2025-12-086:28 You're confused about what applies to people & what applies to formal systems. You will continue to be confused as long as you keep thinking formal results can be applied in informal contexts.
I like your test. Should we also apply to specific humans?
We all stand on the shoulders of giants and learn by looking at othersā solutions.
That's true. But if we take your implied rebuttal then current level AI would be able to learn from current AI as well as it would learn from humans, just like humans learn from other humans. But so far that does not seem to be the case, in fact, AI companies do everything they can to avoid eating their own tail. They'd love eating their own tail if it was worth it.
To me that's proof positive they know their output is mangled inputs, they need that originality otherwise they will sooner or later drown in nonsense and noise. It's essentially a very complex game of Chinese whispers.
By handoflixue 2025-12-083:321 reply Equally, of course, all six year olds need to be trained by other six year olds; we must stop this crutch of using adult teachers
By subscribed 2025-12-0810:24 Beautiful, thank you.
By andsoitis 2025-12-0723:16 I share that perspective.
By andrepd 2025-12-0722:15 Excellent observation.
By ninetyninenine 2025-12-084:34 [dead]
By bfffbgfdcb 2025-12-0722:271 reply [flagged]
By jacquesm 2025-12-0722:50 I think my track record belies your very low value and frankly cowardly comment. If you have something to say at least do it under your real username instead of a throwaway.
By martin-t 2025-12-080:43 The whole "reproduces training data vebatim" is a red herring.
It reproduces _patterns from the training data_, sometimes including verbatim phrases.
The work (to discover those patterns, to figure out what works and what does not, to debug some obscure heisenbug and write a blog post about it, ...) was done by humans. Those humans should be compensated for their work, not owners of mega-corporations who found a loophole in copyright.
Pick up a book about programming from seventies or eighties that was unlikely to be scanned and feed into LLM. Take a task from it and ask LLM to write a program from it that even a student can solve within 10 minutes. If the problem was not really published before, LLM fails spectacularly.
This does not appear to be true. Six months ago I created a small programming language. I had LLMs write hundreds of small programs in the language, using the parser, interpreter, and my spec as a guide for the language. The vast majority of these programs were either very close or exactly what I wanted. No prior source existed for the programming language because I created it whole cloth days earlier.
By jazzyjackson 2025-12-0722:571 reply Obviously you accidentally recreated a language from the 70s :P
(I created a template language for JSON and added branching and conditionals and realized I had a whole programming language. Really proud of my originality until i was reading Ted Nelson's Computer Lib/Dream Machines and found out I reinvented TRAC, and to some extent, XSLT. Anyway LLMs are very good at reasoning about it because it can be constrained by a JSON schema. People who think LLMs only regurgitate haven't given it a fair shot)
By zahlman 2025-12-0723:11 FWIW, I think a JSON-based XSLT-like thing sounds far more enjoyable to use than actual XSLT, so I'd encourage you to show it off.
Languages with reasonable semantics are rather similar and LLMs are good at detecting that and adapting from other languages.
By pertymcpert 2025-12-085:281 reply Sounds like creativity and intelligence to me.
By tatjam 2025-12-0814:05 I think the key is that the LLM is having no trouble mapping from one "embedding" of the language to another (the task they are best performers at!), and that appears extremely intelligent to us humans, but certainly is not all there's to intelligence.
But just take a look at how LLMs struggle to handle dynamical, complex systems such as the "vending machine" paper published some time ago. Those kind of tasks, which we humans tend to think of as "less intelligent" than say, converting human language to a C++ implementation, seem to have some kind of higher (or at least, different) complexity than the embedding mapping done by LLMs. Maybe that's what we typically refer to as creativity? And if so, modern LLMs certainly struggle with that!
Quite sci-fi that we have created a "mind" so alien we struggle to even agree on the word to define what it's doing :)
By handoflixue 2025-12-083:341 reply It's telling that you can't actually provide a single concrete example - because, of course, anyone skilled with LLMs would be able to trivially solve any such example within 10 minutes.
Perhaps the occasional program that relies heavily on precise visual alignment will fail - but I dare say if we give the LLM the same grace we'd give a visually impaired designer, it can do exactly as well.
By tovej 2025-12-086:28 I recently asked an LLM to give me one of the most basic and well-documented algorithms in the world: a blocked matrix multiply. It's essentially a few nested loops and some constants for the block size.
It failed massively, spitting out garbage code, where the comments claimed to use blocking access patterns, but the code did not actually use them at all.
LLMs are, frankly, nearly useless for programming. They may solve a problem every once in a while, but once you look at the code, you notice it's either directly plagiarized or bad quality (or both, I suppose, in the latter case).
By anjel 2025-12-0722:32 Sometimes its generated, and many times its not. Trivial to denote, but its been deemed non of your business.
By ahepp 2025-12-0723:51 You've done this? I would love to read more about it
I have a very anecdotal, but interesting, counterexample.
I recently asked Gemini 3 Pro to create an RSS feed reader type of experience by using XSLT to style and layout an OPML file. I specifically wanted it to use a server-side proxy for CORS, pass through caching headers in the proxy to leverage standard HTTP caching, and I needed all feed entries for any feed in the OPML to be combined into a single chronological feed.
It initially told multiple times that it wasn't possible (it also reminded me that Google is getting rid of XSLT). Regardless, after reiterating that it is possible multiple times it finally decided to make a temporary POC. That POC worked on the first try, with only one follow up to standardize date formatting with support for Atom and RSS.
I obviously can't say the code was novel, though I would be a bit surprised if it trained on that task enough for it to remember roughly the full implementation and still claimed it was impossible.
Why do you believe that to be a counterexample? In fragmentary form all of these elements must have been present in the input, the question is really how large the largest re-usable fragment was and whether or not barring some transformations you could trace it back to the original. I've done some experiments along the same lines to see what it spits out and what I noticed is that from example to example the programming style changed drastically, to the point that I suspect that it was mimicking even the style and not just the substance of the input data, and this over chunks of code long enough that it would definitely clear the bar for plagiarism.
By handoflixue 2025-12-083:361 reply > In fragmentary form all of these elements must have been present in the input
Yes, and Shakespeare merely copied the existing 26 letters of the English alphabet. What magical process do you think students are using when they read and re-combine learned examples to solve assignments?
By jacquesm 2025-12-0815:02 This same argument has now been made a couple of times in this thread (in different guises) and does absolutely nothing to move the conversation forward.
Words and letters are not copyrightable patterns in and of themselves. It is the composition of words and letters that we consider to be original creations and 'the bard' put them in a meaningful and original order not seen before, which established his reputation as a playwright.
By checkmatez 2025-12-0811:20 > that LLM are fundamentally unable to produce original code.
What about humans? Are humans capable of producing completely original code or ideas or thoughts?
As the saying goes, if you want to create something from scratch, you have to start by inventing the universe.
Human mind works by noticing patterns and applying them in different contexts.
By checker659 2025-12-085:52 I think the burden of proof is on the people making the original claim (that LLMs are indeed spitting out original code).
By moron4hire 2025-12-081:583 reply No, the thing needing proof is the novel idea: that LLMs can produce original code.
By marcus_holmes 2025-12-082:501 reply LLMs can definitely produce original other stuff: ask it to create an original poem and on an extremely specific niche subject and it will do so. You can specify the niche subject to the point where it is incredibly unlikely that there is a poem on that subject in its training data, and it will still produce an original poem on that subject [0]. The well-known "otter using wifi on a plane" series of images [1] is another example: this is not in the training data (well, it is now, because well-known, but you get the idea).
Is there something unique about code, that is different from language (or images), that would make it impossible for an LLM to produce original code? I don't believe so, but I'm willing to be convinced.
I think this switches the burden of proof: we know LLMs can produce original content in other contexts. Why would they not be able to create original code?
[0] Ever curious, I tested this assumption. I got Claude to write an original limerick about goats oiling their beards with olive oil, which was the first reasonable thing I could think of as a suitably niche subject. I googled the result and could not find anything close to it. I then asked it to produce another limerick on the same subject, and it produced a different limerick, so obviously not just repeating training data.
[1] https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/the-recent-history-of-ai-in...
No, it transformed your prompt. Another person giving it the same prompt will get the same result when starting from the same state. f('your prompt here') is a transformation of your prompt based on hidden state.
By marcus_holmes 2025-12-0810:52 This is also true of humans, see every debate on free will ever.
The trick, of course, is getting to the exact same starting state.
By ChromaticPanic 2025-12-0816:12 This just reeks of a lack of understanding of how transformers work. Unlike Markov Chains that can only regurgitate known sequences, transformers can actually make new combinations.
By handoflixue 2025-12-083:381 reply What's your proof that the average college student can produce original code? I'm reasonably certain I can get an LLM to write something that will pass any test that the average college student can, as far as that goes.
By moron4hire 2025-12-0817:07 I'm not asking about averages. I'm asking about any. There is no need to perform an academic research study to prove that humans are capable of writing original code because the existence of our conversation right now is the counter-example to disprove the negation.
Yes, it is true that a lot of humans remix existing code. But not all. It has yet to be proven that any LLM is doing something more than remixing code.
I would submit as evidence to this idea (LLMs are not capable of writing original code) the fact that not a single company using LLM-based AI coding has developed a novel product that has outpaced its competition. In any category. If AI really makes people "10x" more productive, then companies that adopted AI a year ago should be 10 years ahead of their competition. Substitute any value N > 1 you want and you won't see it. Indeed, given the stories we're seeing of the massive amounts of waste that is occurring within AI startups and companies adopting AI, it would suggest that N < 1.
By ekropotin 2025-12-0722:24 > If a human did this we probably would have a word for them.
What do you mean? The programmers work is literally combining the existing patterns into solutions for problems.
> If a human did this we probably would have a word for them.
I donāt think itās fair to call someone who used Stack Overflow to find a similar answer with samples of code to copy to their project an asshole.
Who brought Stack Overflow up? Stack Overflow does not magically generate code, someone has to actually provide it first.
I generally agree with your underlying point concerning attribution and intellectual property ownership but your follow-up comment reframes your initial statement: LLMs generate recombinations of code from code created by humans, without giving credit.
Stack Overflow offers access to other peoplesā work, and developers combined those snippets and patterns into their own projects. I suspect attribution is low.
Stack Overflow deals with that issue by having a license agreement.
GitHub, Bitbucket, GCE, AWSā¦all have licensing agreements for user contributions which the user flagged as āpublicā so Iām not exactly clear of your point if you are holding SO up as a bastion of intellectual property rights different from the other places LLM training sets were scraped from.
By jacquesm 2025-12-081:59 I was not the person that introduced SO to the discussion.
By mbesto 2025-12-0723:59 To be fair, their license agreement is pretty much impossible to enforce.
By bluedino 2025-12-0721:49 It has been for the last 15 years.
By Mtinie 2025-12-081:23 Recklessly is a strong word. Iāll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your comment in good faith.
How do you describe the ārecklessā use of information?
Software engineer? You think I cite all the code Iāve ever seen before when I reproduce it? That I even remember where it comes from?
By tovej 2025-12-086:37 You don't?
If you reproduce something, usually you have to check the earlier implementation for it and copy it over. This would inevitably require you to look at the license and author of said code.
Assuming of course, you're talking about nontrivial functionality, because obviously we're not talking about trivial one-liners etc.
By ineedasername 2025-12-080:48 >we probably would have a word for them
Student? Good learner? Pretty much what everyone does can be boiled down to reading lots of other code thatās been written and adapting it to a use case. Sure, to some extent models are regurgitating memorized information, but for many tasks theyāre regurgitating a learned method of doing something and backfilling the specifics as neededā the memorization has been generalized.
By raincole 2025-12-085:38 This is why ragebait is chosen as the word of 2025.
> took that code without credit to the original author(s), adapted it to your use case
Aka software engineering.
By fooker 2025-12-0722:46 > If a human did this we probably would have a word for them.
Humans do this all the time.
Are you saying that every piece of code you have ever written contains a full source list of every piece of code you previously read to learn specific languages, patterns, etc?
Or are you saying that every piece of code you ever wrote was 100% original and not adapted from any previous codebase you ever worked in or any book / reference you ever read?
While I generally agree with you, this "LLM is a human" comparisons really are tiresome I feel. It hasn't been proven and I don't know how many other legal issued could have solved if adding "like a human" made it okay. Google v Oracle? "oh, you've never learned an API??!?" or take the original Google Books controversy - "its reading books and memorizing them, like humans can". I do agree its different but I don't like this line of argument at all.
By FanaHOVA 2025-12-086:17 I agree, that's why I was trying to point out that saying "if a person did that we'd have a word for them" is useless. They are not people, and people don't behave like that anyway. It adds nothing to the discussion.
What's with the bad takes in this thread. That's two strawmen in one comment, it's getting a bit crowded.
By DangitBobby 2025-12-0722:202 reply Or the original point doesn't actually hold up to basic scrutiny and is indistinguishable from straw itself.
The original point, that LLMs are plagiarising inputs, is a very common and common sense opinion.
There are court cases where this is being addressed currently, and if you think about how LLMs operate, a reasonable person typically sees that it looks an awful lot like plagiarism.
If you want to claim it is not plagiarism, that requires a good argument, because it is unclear that LLMs can produce novelty, since they're literally trying to recreate the input data as faithfully as possible.
By DangitBobby 2025-12-0813:302 reply I need you to prove to me that it's not plagiarism when you write code that uses a library after reading documentation, I guess.
> since they're literally trying to recreate the input data as faithfully as possible.
Is that how they are able to produce unique code based on libraries that didn't exist in their training set? Or that they themselves wrote? Is that how you can give them the documentation for an API and it writes code that uses it? Your desire to make LLMs "not special" has made you completely blind to reality. Come back to us.
What?
The LLM is trained on a corpus of text, and when it is given a sequence of tokens, it finds a set of token that, when one of them is appended, make the resulting sequence most like the text in that corpus.
If it is given a sequence of tokens that is unlike anything in its corpus, all bets are off and it produces garbage, just like machine learning models in general: if the input is outside the learned distribution, quality goes downhill fast.
The fact that they've added a Monte Carlo feature to the sequence generation, which makes it sometimes select a token that is slightly less like the most exact match in the corpus does not change this.
LLMs are fuzzy lookup tables for existing text, that hallucinate text for out-of-distribution queries.
This is LLM 101.
If the LLM was only trained using documentation, then there would be no problem. If it would generate a design, look at the documentation, understand the semantics of both, and translate the design to code by using the documentation as a guide.
But that's not how it works. It has open source repositories in its corpus that it then recreates by chaining together examples in this stochastic parrot -method I described above.
By DangitBobby 2025-12-0820:30 K
No, you need to prove that it is not plagiarism when you use an LLM to produce a piece of code that you then claim as yours.
You have the whole burden of proof thing backwards.
By DangitBobby 2025-12-0820:34 Oh wild, I was operating under the assumption that the law requires you to prove that a law was broken, but it turns out you need to prove it wasn't. Thanks!
By incr_me 2025-12-0723:06 You're adhering to an excess of rules, methinks!
By martin-t 2025-12-080:39 Programmers are willingly blind to this, at least until it's their code being stolen or they lose their job.
_LLMs are lossily compressed archives of stolen code_.
Trying to achieve AI through compression is nothing new.[0] The key innovation[1] is that the model[2] does not output only the first order input data but also the higher order patterns from the input data.
That is certainly one component of intelligence but we need to recognize that the tech companies didn't build AI, they build a compression algorithm which, combined with the stolen input text, can reproduce the input data and its patterns in an intelligent-looking way.
[0]: http://prize.hutter1.net/
[1]: Oh, god, this phrase is already triggering my generated-by-LLM senses.
[2]: Model of what? Of the stolen text. If 99.9999% of the work to achieve AI wasn't done by people whose work was stolen, they wouldn't be called models.
By FeepingCreature 2025-12-081:18 This is not how LLMs work.
By giancarlostoro 2025-12-0721:37 You mean like copying and pasting code from Stack Overflow?
By nvllsvm 2025-12-0723:20 > Someone else did
Who?
I've been struggling with this throughout the entire LLM-generated-code arc we're currently living -- I agree that it is wack in theory to take existing code and adapt it to your use-case without proper accreditation, but I've also been writing code since Pulp Fiction was in theaters and a lot of it is taking existing code and adapting it to my use-case, sometimes without a fully-documented paper trail.
Not to mention the moral vagaries of "if you use a library, is the complete articulation of your thing actually 100% your code?"
Is there a difference between loading and using a function from ImageMagick, and a standalone copycat function that mimics a function from ImageMagick?
What if you need it transliterated from one language to another?
Is it really that different than those 1200 page books from the 90's that walk you through implementing a 3D engine from scratch (or whatever the topic might be)? If you make a game on top of that book's engine, is your game truly yours?
If you learn an algorithm in some university class and then just write it again later, is that code yours? What if your code is 1-for-1 a copy of the code you were taught?
It gets very murky very quick!
Obviously I would encourage proper citation, but I also recognize the reality of this stuff -- what if you're fully rewriting something you learned decades ago and don't know who to cite? What if you have some code snippet from a website long forgotten that you saved and used? What if you use a library that also uses a library that you're not aware of because you didn't bother to check, and you either cite the wrapper lib or cite nothing at all?
I don't have some grand theory or wise thoughts about this shit, and I enjoy the anthropological studies trying to ascertain provenance / assign moral authority to remarkable edge cases, but end of the day I also find it exhausting to litigate the use of a tool that exploited the fact that your code got hoovered up by a giant robot because it was public, and might get regurgitated elsewhere.
To me, this is the unfortunate and unfair story of Gregory Coleman [0] -- drummer for The Winstons, who recorded "Amen, Brother" in 1969 (which gave us the most-sampled drum break in the world, spawned multiple genres of music, and changed human history) -- the man never made a dime from it, never even knew, and died completely destitute, despite his monumental contribution to culture. It's hard to reconcile the unjustness of it all, yet not that hard to appreciate the countless positive things that came out of it.
I don't know. I guess at the end of the day, does the end justify the means? Feels pretty subjective!
What amazes me is how many programmers have absolutely no concept about copyright at all. This should be taught as a basic component of any programming course.
By bluesign 2025-12-0814:40 Copyright itself is a complex subject, when you apply it to code it gets more complex.
By goneskiiiing 2025-12-0723:09 [flagged]
By idiotsecant 2025-12-0721:40 Yes, the word for that is software developer.
By littlecranky67 2025-12-0720:292 reply > Claude/LLMs in general are still pretty bad at the intricate details of layouts and visual things
Because the rendered output (pixels, not HTML/CSS) is not fed as data in the training. You will find tons of UI snippets and questions, but they rarely included screenshots. And if they do, the are not scraped.
By Wowfunhappy 2025-12-0721:242 reply Interesting thought. I wonder if Anthropic et al could include some sort of render-html-to-screenshot as part of the training routine, such that the rendered output would get included as training data.
By btown 2025-12-0723:02 Even better, a tool that can tell the rendered bounding box of any set of elements, and what the distances between pairs of elements are, so it can make adjustments if relative positioning doesn't match its expectation. This would be incredible for SVG generation for diagrams, too.
By KaiserPro 2025-12-0722:47 thats basically a VLM, but the problem is that describing the world requires a better understanding of the world. Hence why LeCunn is talking about world models (Its also cutting edge for teaching robots to manipulate and plan manipulations)
By littlecranky67 2025-12-086:561 reply Why would they be?
By ubercow13 2025-12-0819:43 Well, I don't know but many LLMs are multimodal and understand pictures and images. You can upload videos to Gemini and they're tokenised and fed into the LLM. If some programming blog post has a screenshot with the result of some UI code, why would that not be scraped and used for training? Is there some reason that wouldn't be possible?
Why is this something a Wayland compositor (a glorified window manager) needs to worry about? Apple figured this out back in the 1990s with ColorSync and they did it once for the Mac OS and any application that wanted colour management could use the ColorSync APIs.
Color management infrastructure is intricate. To grossly simplify: somehow you need to connect together the profile and LUT for each display, upload the LUTs to the display controller, and provide appropriate profile data for each window to their respective processes. During compositing then convert buffers that don't already match the output (unmanaged applications will probably be treated as sRGB, color managed graphics apps will opt out of conversion and do whatever is correct for their purpose).
Yes, but why is the compositor dealing with this? Shouldn't the compositor simply be deciding which windows go where (X, Y, and Z positions) and leave the rendering to another API? Why does every different take on a window manager need to re-do all this work?
Turning the question around, what other part of the system _could_ do this job? And how would the compositor do any part of its job if it doesn't have access to both window contents and displays? I'm not super deep in this area but a straight-forward example of a non-managed app and a color-aware graphics app running on a laptop with an external display seems like it is enough to figure out how things need to go together. This neglects some complicating factors like display pixel density, security, accessibility, multi-GPU, etc, but I think it more or less explains how the Wayland authors arrived at its design and how some of the problems got there.
I'm questioning the idea that people should be writing compositors at all. Why doesn't Wayland itself do the compositing and let everyone else just manage windows?
It's like going to Taco Bell and they make you grind your own corn for your tortillas.
By hedgehog 2025-12-087:13 Why? Probably better to ask the Wayland developers that. Maybe you're right. That said, whether everyone uses the same compositor and window management is modular, or not and shared code travels as libraries, I don't think the complexity of color management is much different.
I mean, when I hear the word "compositing" I definitely imagine something that involves "alpha" blending, and doing that nicely (instead of a literal alpha calculation) is going to involve colour management.
By chongli 2025-12-083:22 That's on the Wayland team though. They drew up the new API boundaries and decided that all window managers would now be in the business of compositing.
If I wanted to put it most uncharitably, I'd say they decided to push all of the hard parts out of Wayland itself and force everyone else to deal with them.
Ok, so here is an interesting case where Claude was almost good enough, but not quite. But Iāve been amusing myself by taking abandoned Mac OS programs from 20 years ago that I find on GitHub and bringing them up to date to work on Apple silicon. For example, jpegview, which was a very fast and simple slideshow viewer. It took about three iterations with Claude code before I had it working. Then it was time to fix some problems, add some features like playing videos, a new layout, and so on. I may be the only person in the world left who wants this app, but well, that was fine for a day long project that cooked in a window with some prompts from me while I did other stuff. Iāll probably tackle scantailor advanced next to clean up some terrible book scans. Again, I have real things to do with my time, but each of these mini projects just requires me to have a browser window open to a Claude code instance while I work on more attention demanding tasks.
> Ok, so here is an interesting case where Claude was almost good enough, but not quite.
You say that as if thatās uncommon.
By jonplackett 2025-12-0720:321 reply This should be the strap line for all AI (so far)
That's fair. But I always think of it as an intern I am paying $20 a month for or $200 a month. I would be kind of shocked if they could do everything as well as I'd hoped for that price point. It's fascinating for me and worth the money.
I am lucky that I don't depend on this for work at a corporation. I'd be pulling my hair out if some boss said "You are going to be doing 8 times as much work using our corporate AI from now on."
By jonplackett 2025-12-0722:321 reply Don get me wrong, doing 80% of my work for me is still great. And Iām actually quite glad Iām still needed for the other 20%
By jasonkester 2025-12-086:23 The problem is that your intern in this case is doing 1600% of the work, and now itās your job to find and remove that extra 1520% so that youāre left with something usable.
Side note: As a person who started using a mac since march, I found phoenix slides really good.
By smoghat 2025-12-0721:14 It is! I was really just curious if I could update this old codebase without getting my hands dirty.
Interesting. I switched to the Mac in 2005, and what I missed the most was the fact that in windows you could double click an image and then tap the left and right keys to browse other photos in the same folder. I learned objective c and made an app for it back then, but never published. I guess the jpegview fulfilled a similar purpose.
I switched to Mac in 2008. I forget if the featured existed back then, but today on macOS if you press spacebar on an image in Finder to preview, you can use the arrow keys to browse other photos.
By mabedan 2025-12-0815:48 Right. They introduced quick look soon after, but still not ideal. If you interact with the finder in any way, āquicklookedā item changes.
