Shopify CEO vibe codes an MRI viewer | Hacker News Reader

Shopify CEO vibe codes an MRI viewer

xcancel.com

16 pointsnkko21 comments

Claude is likely just using a hand-written package[0] that already does this. If not it's almost certainly plagiarized.

You can try it yourself - apparently it was just this[0] single prompt:

>> This is a USB Stick of my MRI. Find all reports, find all images, use imagemagick to convert them into something useful, and get everything into a structured directory in the ./output folder that's worth retaining. Then, make an index.html that's a full exploration tool for the results. Use /frontend-skills and /generate-image skills if necessary.

> /frontend-skills you can find in the plugin marketplace, generate-image is just a small skill that allows the model to use nanobanana-pro. It used it for some diagrams.

[0]: https://x.com/tobi/status/2010442346618323059

"Shopify CEO doesn't understand how to install a DICOM viewer application which is widely available and open source for any platform [1], so decides to let Claude Code plagiarize one / use widely available open source DICOM libraries."

[1] https://alternativeto.net/software/horos/?license=opensource

The plagiarism of open source accusation is interesting. If you didn't know you are using open source code, is it plagiarism not to acknowledge it? What if you have enough knowledge of how LLMs work that you should have known? Does it help any to include an acknowledgement that you probably used some open source code but don't know which?

I'd parse it the same way as for natural intelligence. If I ask Bob how to do it, and he tells me from what he learned from open source, neither of us are plagiarizing open source.

Are you passing off work you didn't do as your own? If so, it's plagiarism. Doesn't matter exactly where the work came from or how it was laundered, since you know you didn't do it. Simple as that.

Tobi Lutke very explicitly did not pass off the work as his own. He attributed it to Claude. Does the fact that he didn't know about and include all of Claude's sources make it plagiarism? Would he have had the same obligation if he learned it from Bob?

> Tobi Lutke very explicitly did not pass off the work as his own. He attributed it to Claude. Does the fact that he didn't know about and include all of Claude's sources make it plagiarism?

Yes. The OP wrote:

>>>> so decides to let Claude Code plagiarize one

Read it carefully: Claude Code is the actor that's doing the plagiarizing.

What Tobias Lutke is doing is gushing about plagiarism like it's original work.

It's like if I gave you a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird, but with my name as the author, and you then went around telling everyone how impressive of a writer I am.

Claude Code mostly copies and amalgamates codes from others, without attribution. But you could argue that's very similar to what humans do.

In this case it's very likely that Claude Code used some library to parse DICOM (and not outright reproducing it), while the Shopify CEO passed it off as something very innovative or difficult. But that isn't plagiarism either.

It was more of a figure of speech to emphasize that nobody (and no tool) did the actual work here, and the party that did the work did not get any credit.

Perhaps we could call it paraplagiarism.

> I'd parse it the same way as for natural intelligence. If I ask Bob how to do it

Not to detract from your point, but Claude Code is a very much a tool, not another person with their own responsibilities. "natural intelligence" and "artificial intelligence" are not simply interchangeable here.

The very first line had me interested:

> My annual MRI scan

Not sure if he has an underlying health condition that necessitates an MRI scan yearly or if this is part of his preventative medical regiment (much like an annual physical).

Annual full body MRI has become a trend. Not sure who first started promoting it, probably Peter Attia.

I thought radiologists need to know what to look for in order to diagnose something? Do they brute force every potential condition in the body that can be detected with an MRI?

> I thought radiologists need to know what to look for in order to diagnose something? Do they brute force every potential condition in the body that can be detected with an MRI?

No, when they read a scan, they're supposed to read everything visible for every problem. Think of it this way: if you break your leg and they take an MRI, do you want the radiologist to miss a tumor because he was focused on the break?

About how many "parameters" do they evaluate roughly for a full body scan? And is one typically qualified to evaluate across the entire body or do they specialize in different areas of the body?

I don't know, but I've heard from doctors (many times, sometimes quite forcefully) that it's a radiologist's job to call out all abnormalities on the full image they get, and the reasoning makes sense.

I suppose a full body MRI would be very expensive and take a lot of time to read.

Exactly, because an MRI is not a simple "shows problems" machine. It provides a very simplified model of certain aspects of the state of the body. We very often can't know if parts of that state are a health problem or not.

To my knowledge, studies have not shown any benefits of regular full body MRI's. You might find a problem, or you might find a non-problem and in the process of fixing it (aka operation / medication) you create a problem. Those two effects seem to balance out each other on average.

> an underlying health condition that necessitates an MRI scan yearly

Elevated piles of money

That bikini tweet? Really? Mocking out of nowhere the death and subsequent sexualization of Renee Nicole Good on X … despicable

https://x.com/grok/status/2009147824554799156

Tobias Lutke is complicit in supporting non-consensual pornography and CSAM. So is YC and its leaders, by allowing (or being indifferent to) links to a pro-CSAM website.

> That bikini tweet? Really? Mocking out of nowhere the death and subsequent sexualization of Renee Nicole Good on X … despicable

> https://x.com/grok/status/2009147824554799156

It seems like they're covering it up, all I see at that link (as a non-Twitter user) is:

> I generated an AI image altering a photo of Renee Good, killed in the January 7, 2026, Minneapolis ICE shooting, by placing her in a bikini per a user request. This used sensitive content unintentionally.

That "this used sensitive content unintentionally" comment is obviously a lie. By its own description, a user requested it. It was all intentional, all the way down.

No, still there. https://x.com/tobi/status/2010533947097407510?s=20 just wasn't linked properly you can see the grok response on his feed aswell

Reply on news.ycombinator.com