| ▲ | cassianoleal 4 hours ago |
| It's probably good to at least be aware of the plagiarism debacle around Hermes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48187581 |
|
| ▲ | segmondy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| there is no debacle, ". In March 2026, another project in the same lane released a system with strikingly similar memory / skill / evolution-asset design — without any attribution to Evolver. " there is nothing new about memory (aka sessions saved), skills (aka prompt in a file), etc folks have been doing this for 2+ years. |
| |
| ▲ | cassianoleal 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm sorry but if this is not a debacle, then we're operating under very different premises: - teknium1 retitled the original issue to "." and edited the issue text to "." - Nous Research deleted comments from 4 users, including the issue submitter, and blocked all of them. - No formal response has been given by teknium or the Nous Research project. It appears they are trying their darndest to brush it under the rug. Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48318706 | | |
| ▲ | milch 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Looking at their blog about it, I don't think Evolver has any claim to be honest. They make such generic claims as that session history was copied because they implemented their history in some `.jsonl` files while Hermes has a session history using sqlite FTS. Evolver better have some attribution crediting Anthropic for their session history feature, because as far as I can tell they've had that implemented since early 2025! Using .jsonl files no less, coincidentally the same way that Evolver decided to implement session history. I was expecting them to show code samples or something, but to me it looks more like these were two projects that ended up coming up with similar looking features, even with different implementations of these features. I don't see how Nous Research owes them any explanation, especially since at least from that linked issue they were coming in really hot with accusations of plagiarism. If I owned a large OSS project that amassed issues/discussions/PRs at a rate of ~4k per month I would probably also treat this kind of thing as spam. | |
| ▲ | rob 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Teknium" was also defending things on X like a Polymarket skill being pre-installed and stuff. Seems like both projects are a bit unprofessional in terms of leaders. Hermes just tries to sound more authoritative with the "Nous Research" name and fancy site, etc. | | |
| ▲ | drewstiff an hour ago | parent [-] | | Note that the polymarket skill was for using it as a research source, not for placing wagers, and has since been removed as part of a larger streamlining of the included set of skills. |
| |
| ▲ | jddj 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think they probably understand that those complaints hold weight within a <=2010s ethical framework but now we live in the brave new world. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have no idea what these three things mean without more context. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | qingcharles 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And this weirdness: "Hermes Agent (and others) default Installs are silently routing web traffic to Parallel" https://www.reddit.com/r/hermesagent/comments/1u5ukz6/hermes... |
| |
| ▲ | throwa356262 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wow, the response from their team was really awful. Basically: it is a free service, free is good, why are you being difficult? People running Hermes on local models thought their data was theirs, but what if the model is not the only leakage vector?? | | |
| ▲ | kordlessagain 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I just asked Antigravity to clone the repo to look to see if it might have leaky code and it flat out refused three times in a row to even clone it. It would seem the snake is eating its own head. |
| |
| ▲ | theshrike79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And already removed: https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent/pull/46350 tl;dr for people who just read the inaccurate quote: It was the default search provider (for free), if you configured anything else, it was not used. They removed the default. |
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Linking to the claim [1] might be stronger. [1] https://evomap.ai/blog/hermes-agent-evolver-similarity-analy... |
| |
| ▲ | chapel 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did you read it? Given it's all AI slop I wouldn't be surprised if not, but the claim is basically "I had this idea first, I think they stole it from me." Not that they stole code or even copy, just the idea from a completely open source project (at the time). Given how many people have posted and released similar systems over the time skills came out and even before, that's a huge claim with no substance to back it. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Did you read it? Not particularly. But at least that source tries to explain what happened. | | |
| ▲ | chapel 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree on the point of linking it, which the HN thread linked before supposedly had a link to the blog post in question but it did not have any content. So thanks for sharing nonetheless. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nisegami 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wow, I didn't know that. I was getting impressed by Hermes but yeah, I didn't know about it so thanks for telling me. The behaviour by NousResearch is a bit bad (if I am understanding it correctly, I can be wrong, I usually am) but given its an open source project. I don't think that accredition makes a project bad and I simply don't understand the rationale behind a lot of it and streissand effect is starting to kick in the more they might be trying to hide it. Why not just accredit EvoMap's Evolver or come up with an official statement or have a proper discussion between the two teams > The behaviour by NousResearch is so bad given its an open source project. I don't think that accredition makes a project bad and I simply don't understand the rationale behind a lot of it and streissand effect is starting to kick in the more they might be trying to hide it. > Why not just accredit EvoMap's Evolver or come up with an official statement or have a proper discussion between the two teams |
|
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Given that LLMs are capable of generating code from open source projects verbatim (and entire books like Harry Potter verbatim) and no one gives a damn it seems like copyright is essentially a dead letter, legally speaking at least And the courts (in the US and elsewhere) haven't decided to intervene at all. Still a scummy thing to do morally though, I agree. |
|
| ▲ | echelon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 1. This is bad, if true. 2. In the future, there won't be copyright. Or open source. Or anything "owned". It can all just be copied trivially, and there's literally no stopping it. 3. I don't know how to feel about any of that. This is so new and complicated. The whole world is changing dramatically and being completely reshaped. |
| |
| ▲ | kordlessagain 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | As Musk and Dorsey have said, IP law is highly incompatible with AI. Wasn't there some news a while ago that Anthropic and other frontier model companies used a bunch of pirated books to train their models? Are we not all benefiting from the fact that they also crawled a bunch of open code repos? If something is open source, it's pretty easy to tell if code is pulled directly from another repo and included in a project. It's much harder to know if whatever model was building something pulled from it (through training or simply searching online). | | |
| ▲ | theshrike79 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Wasn't there some news a while ago that Anthropic and other frontier model companies used a bunch of pirated books to train their models? Are we not all benefiting from the fact that they also crawled a bunch of open code repos? It was Meta. With Zuck's explicit permission. | | |
|
|
