this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
294 points (92.7% liked)

Open Source

49469 readers
623 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Brandon Thomas, developer of ArtCraft, a suite of open-source creative tools meant to replicate Adobe applications for free, has now announced apps to replace Microsoft Office tools such as Excel, PowerPoint, and Word, respectively, named GridCraft, DeckCraft, and WordCraft, that are created with Claude. Thomas has shared his new clones to ArtCraft GitHub, making them free for all to download.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

There is still a distinction between bad human-written source code and AI slop.

The human holds the copyright of his work and can do whatever he wants with it, including distributing it under a open/libre license, i.e., open source.

AI slop? Not so much. The model is very likely trained on stolen work. It's tainted. Nobody owns the copyright of everything it generates. No one can "open source" it. The license every one receives is voided.

And both who (intentionally) releases bad code to the crowd lack the spirit of open source, but the AI one is also right out illegal.

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with this reply here 100%. My previous reply was just about the fact that code quality isn't important in discussion of what takes to be an Open Source code or not. Because your previous argument was "it's bad code, how can this possibly be Open Source" (paraphrased here just).

I also think if you cannot guarantee the process does not involve in any training data from Adobe software, then how can you proof this is really clean room implementation? And besides the fact that if majority of the code is vibe coded shouldn't be copyrightable, because machines are not humans who has copyright. And to anyone who argues that LLMs are just tools, no, they are not. It's more complicated than that.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The whole clean room thing is weird to me. If an llm room is used at all, how can it be a clean room?

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 hours ago

Exactly what I'm saying.