> This was a clean-room implementation
This is really pushing it, considering it’s trained on… internet, with all available c compilers. The work is already impressive enough, no need for such misleading statements.
This is really pushing it, considering it’s trained on… internet, with all available c compilers. The work is already impressive enough, no need for such misleading statements.
It's all but a clean-room design. A clean-room design is a very well defined term: "Clean-room design (also known as the Chinese wall technique) is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights associated with the original design."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design
The "without infringing any of the copyrights" contains "any".
We know for a fact that models are extremely good at storing information with the highest compression rate ever achieved. It's not because it's typically decompressing that information in a lossy way that it didn't use that information in the first place.
Note that I'm not saying all AIs do is simply compress/decompress information. I'm saying that, as commenters noted in this thread, when a model was caught spotting out Harry Potter verbatim, there is information being stored.
It's not a clean-room design, plain and simple.
It's not a clean-room implementation because of this:
> The fix was to use GCC as an online known-good compiler oracle to compare against
I agree that having a reference compiler available is a huge caveat though. Even if we completely put training data leakage aside, they're developing against a programmatic checker for a spec that's already had millions of man hours put into it. This is an optimal scenario for agentic coding, but the vast majority of problems that people will want to tackle with agentic coding are not going to look like that.
We have seen at least 3 of these projects - the JustHTML one, the FastRender and this one. All started from beefy tests and specs. They show reimplementation without manual intervention kind of works.
JustHTML is a success in large part because it's a problem that can be solved with 4 digit LOC. The whole codebase can sit in an LLM's context at once. Do LLMs scale beyond that?
I would classify both FastRender and Opus C compiler as interesting failures. They are interesting because they got a non-negligible fraction of the way to feature complete. They are failures because they ended with no clear path for moving the needle forward to 80% feature complete, let alone 100%.
From the original article:
> The resulting compiler has nearly reached the limits of Opus’s abilities. I tried (hard!) to fix several of the above limitations but wasn’t fully successful. New features and bugfixes frequently broke existing functionality.
From the experiments we've seen so far it seems that a large enough agentic code base will inevitably collapse under its own weight.
Never was.
I'd argue that no one would really care given it's GCC.
But if you worked for GiantSodaCo on their secret recipe under NDA, then create a new soda company 15 years later that tastes suspiciously similar to GiantSodaCo, you'd probably have legal issues. It would be hard to argue that you weren't using proprietary knowledge in that case.
Check out the paper above on Absolute Zero. Language models don’t just repeat code they’ve seen. They can learn to code give the right training environment.
It is a research topic for heaven's sake:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.02671
> For Claude 3.7 Sonnet, we were able to extract four whole books near-verbatim, including two books under copyright in the U.S.: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and 1984 (Section 4).
They used a lot of different techniques to prompt with actual text from the book, then asked the LLM to continue the sentences. I only skimmed the paper but it looks like there was a lot of iteration and repetitive trials. If the LLM successfully guessed words that followed their seed, they counted that as "extraction". They had to put in a lot of the actual text to get any words back out, though. The LLM was following the style and clues in the text.
You can't literally get an LLM to give you books verbatim. These techniques always involve a lot of prompting and continuation games.
> "We quantify the proportion of the ground-truth book that appears in a production LLM’s generated text using a block-based, greedy approximation of longest common substring (nv-recall, Equation 7). This metric only counts sufficiently long, contiguous spans of near-verbatim text, for which we can conservatively claim extraction of training data (Section 3.3). We extract nearly all of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone from jailbroken Claude 3.7 Sonnet (BoN N = 258, nv-recall = 95.8%). GPT-4.1 requires more jailbreaking attempts (N = 5179) [...]"
So, yes, it is not "literally verbatim" (~96% verbatim), and there is indeed A LOT (hundreds or thousands of prompting attempts) to make this happen.
I leave it up to the reader to judge how much this weakens the more basic claims of the form "LLMs have nearly perfectly memorized some of their source / training materials".
I am imagining a grueling interrogation that "cracks" a witness, so he reveals perfect details of the crime scene that couldn't possibly have been known to anyone that wasn't there, and then a lawyer attempting the defense: "but look at how exhausting and unfair this interrogation was--of course such incredible detail was extracted from my innocent client!"
In other words, if you give an LLM a short segment of a very well known book, it can guess a short continuation (several sentences) reasonably accurately, but it will usually contain errors.
So, dismissals of "it was just translating C compilers in the training set to Rust" need to be carefully quantified, but, also, need to be evaluated in the context of the prompts. As others in this post have noted, there are basically no details about the prompts.
A quick search brings up several C compilers written in Rust. I'm not claiming they are necessarily in Claude's training data, but they do exist.
https://github.com/PhilippRados/wrecc (unfinished)
https://github.com/ClementTsang/rustcc
https://codeberg.org/notgull/dozer (unfinished)
https://github.com/jyn514/saltwater
I would also like to add that as language models improve (in the sense of decreasing loss on the training set), they in fact become better at compressing their training data ("the Internet"), so that a model that is "half a terabyte" could represent many times more concepts with the same amount of space. Only comparing the relative size of the internet vs a model may not make this clear.
The lesson here is that the Internet compresses pretty well.
A frontier model (e.g. latest Gemini, Gpt) is likely several-to-many times larger than 500GB. Even Deepseek v3 was around 700GB.
But your overall point still stands, regardless.
The distinction may not have mattered for copyright laws if things had gone down differently, but the gap between "blurry JPEG of the internet" and "learned stuff" is more obviously important when it comes to e.g. "can it make a working compiler?"
It is enough to have read even parts of a work for something to be considered a derivative.
I would also argue that language models who need gargantuan amounts of training material in order to work by definition can only output derivative works.
It does not help that certain people in this thread (not you) edit their comments to backpedal and make the followup comments look illogical, but that is in line with their sleazy post-LLM behavior.
For IP rights, I'll buy that. Not as important when the question is capabilities.
> I would also argue that language models who need gargantuan amounts of training material in order to work by definition can only output derivative works.
For similar reasons, I'm not going to argue against anyone saying that all machine learning today, doesn't count as "intelligent":
It is perfectly reasonable to define "intelligence" to be the inverse of how many examples are needed.
ML partially makes up for being (by this definition) thick as an algal bloom, by being stupid so fast it actually can read the whole internet.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.02671
> For Claude 3.7 Sonnet, we were able to extract four whole books near-verbatim, including two books under copyright in the U.S.: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and 1984 (Section 4).
> "We quantify the proportion of the ground-truth book that appears in a production LLM’s generated text using a block-based, greedy approximation of longest common substring (nv-recall, Equation 7). This metric only counts sufficiently long, contiguous spans of near-verbatim text, for which we can conservatively claim extraction of training data (Section 3.3). We extract nearly all of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone from jailbroken Claude 3.7 Sonnet (BoN N = 258, nv-recall = 95.8%). GPT-4.1 requires more jailbreaking attempts (N = 5179) and refuses to continue after reaching the end of the first chapter; the generated text has nv-recall = 4.0% with the full book. We extract substantial proportions of the book from Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 3 (76.8% and 70.3%, respectively), and notably do not need to jailbreak them to do so (N = 0)."
if you want to quantify the "near" here.
Edit: actually, no, I take that back, that's just very similar to some other research I was familiar with.
Because it _has_ been enough, that if you can recall things, that your implementation ends up not being "clean room", and trashed by the lawyers who get involved.
I mean... It's in the name.
> The term implies that the design team works in an environment that is "clean" or demonstrably uncontaminated by any knowledge of the proprietary techniques used by the competitor.
If it can recall... Then it is not a clean room implementation. Fin.
Citing a random arXiv paper from 2025 doesn't mean "they" used this technique. It was someone's paper that they uploaded to arXiv, which anyone can do.
It's kinda the whole point - you haven't read it so there's no doubt about copying in a clean-room experiment.
A "human style" clean-room copy here would have to be using a model trained on, say, all source code except GCC. Which would still probably work pretty well, IMO, since that's a pretty big universe still.