Hacker News Reader

Comment by smokel | Hacker News Reader

You cannot claim authorship of something that you were not even allowed to take in the first place. How would you then allow rights to somebody else?

Seems pretty obvious to me.

View on HN

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.

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.

My independent judgement and experience is along your lines, but I’m trying to also take Anthropic seriously:

> “I don’t prompt Claude anymore. I have loops running that prompt Claude and figuring out what to do. My job is to write loops.”

> “Can confirm Claude Code is 100% written by Claude Code”

Both from head of Claude Code. Taken either literally or seriously they point to Anthropic shipping code with limited human authorship.

Oh I certainly believe them. And on some level I admire the dogfooding. It just seems awful foolish of them.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com