Link to post: https://mastodon.social/@nicklockwood/117069670583842298
Short version: Two seperate “vibe-coders” used Claude to create an app–which turned out identical. And then the coders went after each other.
Transcript
Nick Lockwood: Holy shit, so the “Claude plagiarised an app” story is actually “Claude produced the same app twice when prompted to do so by two separate developers” 😅
Colin Cornaby
infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/117066183348062085
I looked at the replies to this post, did some more digging, and found the actual story is even weirder.
BOTH projects were generated using Claude. So you have two people - both generating the same app from the same training data - having a public throw down over who copied who. Kind of embarrassing.
Link to story
Original post
Yea, the first one wasn’t written by Claude. This Nick person doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about.
I’ve been saying that for years: all LLM code output is “tainted” in terms of copyright. At the very least it’s all copyleft because copyleft code was used to train it, or more likely it’s just impossible to use legally at all because it’s conflictingly-licensed stuff smushed together.