3 ms·

Folks... read the actual tweet. They literally didn't vibe code it - they copy-pasted another project.

by wolttam 4mo ago

john_strinlai 4mo ago
wait just a second, that's not how to use HN. youre supposed to read the title -> get upset and write a comment -> argue.
- mdjxnxnxnd 4mo ago
  Rabble rabble rabble
dools 4mo ago
Vibe stole it?
- josephg 4mo ago
  Probably just stole it by the looks of those screenshots.
  - dools 4mo ago
    Yeah I mean like git clone the repo then "hey LLM rip off this code, make no mistakes"
Sanzig 4mo ago
Yeah, the title that the OP chose is so sufficiently misleading that I think this one will need to be get changed by the mods. Seitz isn't opining on the ethics of vibe coding in his tweet, he's pointing out that Corgi literally just stole Papermark's AGPL codebase and passed it off as vibe coding.
- jknoepfler 4mo ago
  It's nearly word-for-word the content of the tweet. Right at the top. It isn't misleading unless you literally don't even bother to open the linked content. Just ban users who comment without reading, I think that would go further to keep the quality of discussion high. The number of bots/trolls responding to the title without reading the content and missing the point entirely is astounding, honestly, and I don't think any of those posts are contributing to high quality discussion. We could do without those users. "but but but I can't/won't open twitter links" - then don't flap your yak-hole. Ignoring for a moment that the content has been reproduced in full in this thread, and another user has provided an alternative xcancel link.
  - Sanzig 4mo ago
    Ideally yes, but we know people don't RTFA - there's a reason that initialism dates back to early Slashdot. The paraphrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting to convert it to ragebait. Had the OP gone with something like "you didn't vibe code it, you plagiarized Papermark's open source project" (may need some editing to fit under the character limit) it would have at least been more true to the original tweet.
    - jknoepfler 4mo ago
      I know I RTFA, and I know I'm not interested in discussing things with people who don't. Maybe others feel differently, because more people is better or something. Information pollution is a serious, persistent, growing problem and I'm just not inclined to be tolerant about it anymore. Mistakes are one thing, deliberate stupidity is another. If you come to book club without reading the book, and you derail the conversation into something completely irrelevant, you're not getting invited back.
      - hluska 4mo ago
        That’s a lot of rage for something that does not impact you at all. Who cares? You don’t get to control everything around you online.
  - brookst 4mo ago
- IshKebab 4mo ago
  They may have been vibe coding and not realised it was an exact copy. AI sometimes makes verbatim copies of things in its training set.
  - scosman 4mo ago
    Short segments of popular works sure. Many UI pages with identical layouts and copy, essentially zero chance. The agent had access to the original code at inference time.
panny 4mo ago
Same thing https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/ https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/
pydry 4mo ago
I remember a few cases when asking an LLM to do something in the early days yielded not only the code but an author and a COPYRIGHT license. Naturally LLM technology has moved on since then. I don't remember any recent word for word reproductions of a copyright license. There are a lot of people lauding the technology though because it occasionally one-shots a wildly impressive example of something which...already exists.

Folks... read the actual tweet. They literally didn't vibe code it - they copy-pasted another project.

by wolttam 4mo ago

Folks... read the actual tweet. They literally didn't vibe code it - they copy-pasted another project.

wait just a second, that's not how to use HN. youre supposed to read the title -> get upset and write a comment -> argue.

mdjxnxnxnd 4mo ago
Rabble rabble rabble

dools 4mo ago

Vibe stole it?

josephg 4mo ago
Probably just stole it by the looks of those screenshots.
- dools 4mo ago
  Yeah I mean like git clone the repo then "hey LLM rip off this code, make no mistakes"

Sanzig 4mo ago

Yeah, the title that the OP chose is so sufficiently misleading that I think this one will need to be get changed by the mods. Seitz isn't opining on the ethics of vibe coding in his tweet, he's pointing out that Corgi literally just stole Papermark's AGPL codebase and passed it off as vibe coding.

jknoepfler 4mo ago
It's nearly word-for-word the content of the tweet. Right at the top. It isn't misleading unless you literally don't even bother to open the linked content. Just ban users who comment without reading, I think that would go further to keep the quality of discussion high. The number of bots/trolls responding to the title without reading the content and missing the point entirely is astounding, honestly, and I don't think any of those posts are contributing to high quality discussion. We could do without those users. "but but but I can't/won't open twitter links" - then don't flap your yak-hole. Ignoring for a moment that the content has been reproduced in full in this thread, and another user has provided an alternative xcancel link.
- Sanzig 4mo ago
  Ideally yes, but we know people don't RTFA - there's a reason that initialism dates back to early Slashdot. The paraphrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting to convert it to ragebait. Had the OP gone with something like "you didn't vibe code it, you plagiarized Papermark's open source project" (may need some editing to fit under the character limit) it would have at least been more true to the original tweet.
  - jknoepfler 4mo ago
    I know I RTFA, and I know I'm not interested in discussing things with people who don't. Maybe others feel differently, because more people is better or something. Information pollution is a serious, persistent, growing problem and I'm just not inclined to be tolerant about it anymore. Mistakes are one thing, deliberate stupidity is another. If you come to book club without reading the book, and you derail the conversation into something completely irrelevant, you're not getting invited back.
    - hluska 4mo ago
      That’s a lot of rage for something that does not impact you at all. Who cares? You don’t get to control everything around you online.
- brookst 4mo ago
IshKebab 4mo ago
They may have been vibe coding and not realised it was an exact copy. AI sometimes makes verbatim copies of things in its training set.
- scosman 4mo ago
  Short segments of popular works sure. Many UI pages with identical layouts and copy, essentially zero chance. The agent had access to the original code at inference time.

panny 4mo ago

Same thing https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/ https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/

pydry 4mo ago

I remember a few cases when asking an LLM to do something in the early days yielded not only the code but an author and a COPYRIGHT license. Naturally LLM technology has moved on since then. I don't remember any recent word for word reproductions of a copyright license. There are a lot of people lauding the technology though because it occasionally one-shots a wildly impressive example of something which...already exists.