| |
| ▲ | sunshowers 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did you read my post? > And, to be clear, I do not have a problem with Anthropic copying Mononoke’s design. (This is part of why we put out open source — to benefit humanity through the spread of good ideas.) Followed by: > But as LLMs continue to assist in designing new systems, they are likely to index heavily on existing designs. Mononoke is open source and in every LLM’s training set. If you ask Opus 5.5 or GPT-6 Astra (thanks Matthew Fowle) about prior art, they both immediately point out the similarities to Mononoke. I think it is the duty of any responsible engineer to look for and cite prior art and related work, if only to compare notes. | | |
| ▲ | rcxdude 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I think it is the duty of any responsible engineer to look for and cite prior art and related work, if only to compare notes. The patent system actively discourages this by tripling damages for knowing violation, as does the copyright system by the threat of accusations of copying that are best defended against by 'I never saw it'. It's much safer, legally speaking, to explicitly avoid doing this. | |
| ▲ | nomel an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I did, but those additional requirements are outside the licenses and the legal framework, and more wanting them to match your personal vibe/moral framework around open source. There's case law around this going back to the 80's. A third party is allowed to independently produce, and be extremely inspired, by open source code, and then can license it however they want. Protecting copied functionality is NOT PROTECTED. Again, that was the fucking point. You could, for example, swap out compatible software if you wanted! You wouldn't be tied to one vendor! Open source licensing protects direct copying. It does NOT protect re-implementing from scratch. See all the lawsuits around Java. You should not be using open source software if you don't want others to read your source! | | |
| ▲ | sunshowers an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I am aware that that credit is not required by law, nor in this case do I wish for credit to be required by law. I am appealing to norms, to basic decency. |
| |
| ▲ | webdood90 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think it is the duty of any responsible engineer to look for and cite prior art and related work, if only to compare notes. Maybe 5 years ago that would be the expectation but all etiquette has been thrown out the window with AI. I think you expect too much. |
| |
| ▲ | duhhhhh1212 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s wild to see people rudely commenting without reading the article. It used to be that people read the article before opening their mouth. |
|
