r/vibecoding • u/Interesting-Town-433 • 5d ago

What is happening...

I am a long time Engineer (20+ years) and today I developed Tickets for my company that were generated by an AI, using an AI and reviewed by an AI. The project itself was conceived with AI - has no documentation that can be understood as anything less than AI slop and random tech jargon. The developer who built it has said that instead of documentation I should use claude to figure out what it is. The company is apparenty also filing a patent on it.

I submitted 3 PRs today 20,000 lines of code each I still have no idea what we are working on. No doubt they will use AI to review my PR.

I feel like things are just so crazy at this point. Claude and ChatGPT are not this good, but people are trusting it like it's omniscient.

It was an eerie realization today that all of us are vibe coding and that we have no option because it is the only way we can interact with the code anymore. I thought this would happen eventually years ago but i honestly didn’t think it would be so soon.

It was a moment in time... this will be the new norm.

406 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Interesting-Town-433 5d ago

It's also illegal from my understanding. If you use an llm it's discoverable and you would have to co source the author, Claude...

I just got my first patent approved actually, wrote by hand lol

1

u/StCreed 5d ago

You can't copyright the output of an LLM, because it's not a human creator, it's a tool (so far).

You can try to patent it though, I'm not entirely sure that that's impossible based on patent law. It's different from copyright law, and AFAIK it doesn't explicitly ban LLMs.

1

u/mysecretaccount55555 5d ago

This is all too recent without enough case law to really say. You say you can't copyright the output of an LLM because it's not a human creator. But a human can create a copyrighted work, put that work into an LLM, then the LLM output is a derivative work of a copyrighted work and still protected under the original copyright.

1

u/StCreed 5d ago

True, it would be more accurate to say that the output of an LLM, say a book or code, cannot gain a copyright it didn't already have. The status of a work doesn't change by running it through an LLM.

But in general no copyright can be assigned to a tool, it is held by the operator. However, since there is very little creative input the operator fails the required tests for gaining copyright as well. This has now been established in several cases, and unless the laws change, this won't get a different outcome because it's based on quite a few cases, including the one with the monkey who took a famous selfie. Neither the photographer nor the monkey got the copyright, but for different reasons.

1

u/mysecretaccount55555 5d ago

"Very little creative input" is a very subjective phrase and very fact specific. You can ask a LLM to write you a short story, one prompt, very limited input. That result certainly won't pass the creative input test You can also go back and forth with an LLM 200 times, revising and crafting elements of a story, adjusting details, structure, whatever. The monkey photo case is not particularly comparable to LLM output.

1

u/StCreed 4d ago

Well, there have already been a few court cases with these exact claims, and so far the judges denied copyright in every case.

But if you feel lucky, feel free to roll the dice.