One feature request: In addition to high-level milestones, it would be cool if a partially-funded project would generate a public, highly detailed implementation plan.
Also, IANAL but MIT is still a license with a copyright holder. I don't think saying "it's MIT, we all own it" is defensible. The courts might view all this code as public domain.
Also who would take on any of these projects for a meager 200$? Most of that stuff is borderline interesting, clearly not interesting enough for the people proposing the things to start working on them themselves.
If you buy a text of me, I cannot sign away my authorship, and there’s certain limitations on what you can do with my text regardless of contract. I can only sell you usage rights - which may or may not be exclusive. If the text I wrote is trivial, neither you nor me can limit when it is reproduced. The effort of collecting data is not sufficient, if the data itself is declared trivial. See rulings about phone books.
When an AI provider produces data that is deemed not copyrightable, it cannot legally sell you exclusive usage rights. It can give it to you exclusively, but since you cannot yourself claim copyright, the moment you publish it it becomes available for others to use as well. One may argue that an LLM is similar to a phone book, with its entries being “trivial“ and its composition not artistic enough.
At least that’s the line of argument.
If you buy a text of me, I cannot sign away my authorship, and there’s certain limitations on what you can do with my text regardless of contract.
The other line of argument is the "Claude Code is to coding like a photo camera is to painting". The image is generated automatically, but the input in how you point the camera is enough to still make it a creative work protected by copyright. Under that interpretation, you are not hiring AI, you are using it like a tool
The US Copyright Office holds the former opinion. I'm sure once this goes to court, lots of companies will vehemently argue the latter. I would not be surprised if we even end up changing the law over this
In a few years most saas will have 95 percent or even more AI coded code.
Could I steal it and put it on git?
If I hired a bunch of people to build me a house, and I drafted the architectural plans with the help of a paid architect, neither the architect nor the builders have ownership over the home.
So if a collection of people design something together maybe that has merit, they collectively paid for Anthropic to build it for them…
> As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an assertion.
With apologies to Mr. Charles Babbage.
I think it might be beneficial to use blockchain, so that the donor can audit which prompts the token-pool they donated too performed. Perhaps donating tokens can also give you votes on which prompts are entered.
Which market is even left after since the sasspocaloypse?
This sort of reminds me of startups that go out of business and then open source their code. It's kind of cool when they can do that, but almost nobody ever gets value from it.
Anyway, if anyone uses the code produced this way in prod, I'd love to hear your story.
Not sure how it'd work, but there's absolutely a niche for a privacy focused data cooperative out there.
Any income from what? The code is free, right? X% of your company's total revenue? Might as well just say "companies can't use this".
Personally I like the idea of a "free as in freedom but not free as in beer" license. You have to pay for a copy of the software, but after that you're free to use and modify it as you please, and share/sell your modifications under the same license.
To turn that into a cooperative you could have a company own the code and pay developers in shares of the company for PRs or other contributioins.
Could this be the way we develop software in the future?!
- instead of paying for subscription SaaS. Users pool resources for the idea, AI builds and maintains it. Pricing is a fraction of what we pay otherwise.
A bit early today but definitely a possibility in a couple of years.
In all seriousness, I would probably throw $10 at a project to design and implement a modern turbofan FADEC + all of the certification artifacts.
this literally already exists if you’re willing to maintain your own physical infra, and has for a long time - nothing aws does is that innovative software wise. maybe their managed k8s eliminates a ton of pain, but I dont know. it’s the reliability guarantee + support + not having to maintain physical servers. if youre willing to shirk all that and do it yourself why would you want aws? lol
tldr; was laughing at the xy vibe of the ask
But I stopped after asking Claude about it. It categorically told me that the moment you fund a model, you are legally liable for its actions.
How to get around it?
I mean Claude will tell you because anthropic made it tell you that, doesn't mean it's true.
GoFundMe and indigogo aren't responsible for the actions of the funded projects either, hence it's unlikely that any judge would decide that the liability would go to the platform if it can show it's doing it's best effort in moderation wrt illegal content
If you mean just throw it together and then don't moderate at all then .. yeah, you'll be held liable. But that's not because of the person paying the prompt, it's because moderating illegal content is the responsibility of the platform provider.
