Yes and the reason is not subtle...
We'll see much more of that now: people defending theft and then arguing that if you change the position of one comma in the entirety of Harry Potter, then it's an acceptable new product.
It's crystal clear why: LLMs are very good at copying / stealing / tweaking.
What's not clear though is how are licenses, including the open-source ones, respected here?
I'm not just talking about copying a website pixel-for-pixel: I'm talking about things like re-implementing a compiler, supposedly from scratch, when we all know it's not at all a clean room implementation.
Expect a wave of "theft is good" from the same people who are pushing 24/7 "buy commercial AI models subscriptions" content (which I have btw so no need to sell me more of them).
> We bet that vibecoding would allow us to move faster
"Theft is good"
History rhymes, indeed. Almost two centuries ago, Balzac wrote:
> A man spends ten years of his life searching for an industrial secret, a machine, some kind of discovery, he takes out a patent, he believes he is master of his thing, he is followed by a competitor who, if he has not foreseen everything, perfects his invention with a screw, and thus takes it out of his hands. [Illusions perdues, 1843]
It's unusual seeing the process stated so bluntly, but for something as cookie-cutter as a company homepage this has been how web designers have done things for decades. Or, at the very least, it's how the craft is learned.
I think the Mintlify designers viewed dozens if not hundreds of examples, then thought very carefully about exactly what they needed to express for their page and how best to express it. Then they built their page step by step, sweating over every detail.
Then Kibu came along, lifted the entire thing, changed "3%" of it and called it their own.
What Kibu did is gross.
Directly copying is tacky and immoral - it's also not effective. You should be thinking about how to position _your product_ not how someone else positioned their product.