I noticed you pointed out that the logo was "hand-drawn in Procreate". Is the code the same or were portions of it generated using an LLM (which was almost assuredly trained on lots of copyrighted data without the consent of the original authors and writers)?
I wouldn't have even brought it up if the artisanal declaration hadn't been explicitly called out.
I find the logic of AI art != okay, but AI code == okay, a bit inconsistent.
Agreed. That's half the reason that no matter how accurate a virtual synthesizer can be (like the Mac App Moog Model D), there's just no substitute for being able to physically fiddle the knobs and dials.
I have a rough time calculating how much more productive AI tooling has made me, because when it does save me time (simple mocking, greenfielding, proof-of-concept), - it saves me a ton of time. Conversely when it fails hard on me I can lose a lot of time and also patience.
The trick is developing the intuition to know when to cut your losses early and instead of continuing to fight the LLM, just implement it yourself.
This entire post reeks of astroturfing - almost every single comment here is from accounts with 1 karma. OP didn't even take the time to remove the em-dashes from the blatantly obvious LLM generated text.
It's a fun little game - the minimalistic UI/UX suits it well. I'd consider lowering the volume on the music. It doesn't really feel like it suits a casual puzzle game either.
I feel like I see this A LOT these days. If you do a Show HN (for example) and your project is directly inspired by somebody else's who came before you, the least you can do is give nominal attribution.
What is it about software development in particular that makes people so seemingly ethically unfettered by blatant plagiarism?
It has always been this way. How many people who grew up on text terminals, and despised GUI-based utilities that are essentially just thin graphical wrappers on top of a CLI tool at 20x the size?
This argument gets repeated by every generation ad nauseam, even though they're oblivious to the fact that it keeps reoccurring. Everyone loves drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.
I don't know a lot about this particular approach but your comment that it's just using Google results is blatantly false. It all depends on the search engine that the brave user is leveraging, or no search engine if they type in the URL directly into the header.
This comment makes zero sense considering that mod/XM type tracker files are mere kilobytes in size as opposed to a streamed OGG or MP3 file which is megabytes.
Back when I majored in computer science, 20 years ago, mine was an equal combination of computer architecture, theory of information, mathematics, and some electrical engineering.
Vitriol aside, you need to chill for a bit and touch grass.
"Training" doesn't really have a well-defined meaning, I could use your website to train something as simple as a histogram of word counts for an AI for example. Nothing about that constitutes copyright infringement under even the loosest definition of their legal concept.
Additionally weights from training and the AI's output are two completely different matters from a legal perspective as well.
It's not an ad hominem attack, a second year CS student is highly unlikely to carry the experience of years working in the industry in order to be able to answer this question with any degree of reliability. Calling them out on this is spot on, and I'm getting really tired of people attempting to deflect or whinge about toxicity because an certain argument doesn't sit well with them.
It is really hard work and it takes a certain maturity and disposition for selflessness to be good at it.
I think it's easier to be selfless about it if you don't have any ambition outside of your typical 9 to 5 career. For a lot of people genetic propagation is the summit of their existence, and there's nothing wrong with that.
If that's true, then you're only exacerbating it by attacking "said thread".
Furthermore, threads raising the issue of googles seemingly erratic depredation of their products and threads discussing the product itself aren't mutually exclusive. You can do this neat thing called scroll down, and not read these threads if they bother you so much.
The value is that it provides context around googles substantial issues with long-term support for their products. So anybody who's new to hacker news or even new to the tech world can see that this is still an ongoing issue, and can avoid getting burned like so many of us before.
And given the forum, I like to think that there's probably a fair number of Googlers who see these comments, so it's always on the forefront of their minds when they may bring it up to their managers and their managers managers.
I wouldn't have even brought it up if the artisanal declaration hadn't been explicitly called out.
I find the logic of AI art != okay, but AI code == okay, a bit inconsistent.