I believe that someone can get it to produce working code. Whenever I press the button though, I'm not getting great results.

I treat people with respect because they are people. Absolutely not the case for machines.

Well see, we're sick of winning.

If you think someone might be a DV risk that seems like a reasonable line as long as your expectations are clear.

I think it means you write a spec from the implementation. Then you write a new implementation from the spec. You might go so far as to do the second part in a "clean" room.

Heh, the original being entirely vibed had me thinking of an interesting problem: if you used the same model to generate a specification, then reset the state and passed that specification back to it for implementation, the resulting code would by design be very close to the original. With enough luck (or engineering), you could even get the same exact files in some cases.

Does this still count as clean-room? Or what if the model wasn't the same exact one, but one trained the same way on the same input material, which Anthropic never owned?

This is going to be a decade of very interesting, and probably often hypocritical lawsuits.

right. that's not what people are doing here though, at all

in a typical clean-room design, the person writing the new implementation is not supposed to have any knowledge of the original, they should only have knowledge of the specification.

if one person writes the spec from the implementation, and then also writes the new implementation, it is not clean-room design.

I believe the argument is that LLMs are stateless. So if the session writing the code isn't the same session that wrote the spec, it's effectively a clean room implementation.

There are other details of course (is the old code in the training data?) but I'm not trying to weigh in on the argument one way or the other.

Devil's advocate here. Maybe we'd all forget how to build bridges in the next thousand years, after bridging all the bridg-able spans.

From my naive point of view, it's not clear from first principles why they must.

It's a version of the principal-agent problem, with the added wrinkle that principals have low barriers to exit. Both the management and investors share the incentive structure of a con artist.

A disused lavatory?

We can neither confirm nor deny on advice of counsel.

A trendy sandwich

And hopefully not the last