Sure, the weights are where the real value lives, but if the quality is so lax they leak their whole codebase, maybe they are just lucky they didn’t leak customer data or the model weights? If that did happen, the entire business might evaporate overnight.
The product hasn't been around long enough to decide whether such an approach is "sustainable". It is currently in a hype state and needs more time for that hype to die down and the true value to show up, as well as to see whether it becomes the 9th circle of hell to keep in working order.
I'm not (just) being glib. That earlier article displays some introspection and thoughtful consideration of an old debate. The writing style is clearly personal, human.
Today's post is not so much. It has LLM fingerprints on it. It's longer, there are more words. But it doesn't strike me as having the same thoughtful consideration in it. I would venture to guess that the author tried to come up with some new angles on the news of the Claude Code leak, because it's a hot topic, and jotted some notes, and then let an LLM flesh it out.
Writing styles of course change over time, but looking at these two posts side by side, the difference is stark.
anematode•31m ago
Seems like the phrase "clean room" is the new "nonplussed"... how does this make any sense?
recursive•26m ago
roywiggins•23m ago
john_strinlai•22m ago
if one person writes the spec from the implementation, and then also writes the new implementation, it is not clean-room design.
post_below•16m ago
There are other details of course (is the old code in the training data?) but I'm not trying to weigh in on the argument one way or the other.