|
| ▲ | colinhb an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| In general I agree with you, especially about how things should work, and find the current trend of claiming LLM-washing code hugely problematic. I do wonder what the analysis would be of these prompts were vibe-coded, though, since in general LLM output can’t be copyrighted without significant human authorship, and Anthropic is pretty noisy about minimal human supervision. |
| |
| ▲ | jdiff an hour ago | parent [-] | | The minimal human supervision for prompts seems like a pretty silly take. LLMs are still pretty bad at creating good prompts for LLMs. Give it a benchmark and some feedback and it can brute force it, but far less effectively. And I thought the point of using LLMs for development was increased efficiency. |
|
|
| ▲ | dahart 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Oh you’re assuming the content in this repo is taken from somewhere? There are other sibling threads about this; you might be mis-interpreting the title. |
| |
| ▲ | smokel 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The GitHub page clearly states that it is reverse engineered. Even if you rewrite an article in your own words, you cannot claim copyright for that. At least, not to my knowledge. | | |
| ▲ | dahart 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh you’re right, sorry! Well unless the Claude Design prompt is open source licensed, then correct, it’s not legal to publish it under an open license. That would be a copyright violation. |
|
|
