Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: FablePool – pool money behind a prompt, and Fable builds it in public

fablepool.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 301 posts

Re: Show HN: FablePool – pool money behind a prompt, and Fable builds it in public

#251

Post by amarant »

csande17 wrote: post #227
amarant wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I paid money to someone to write that code" is exactly the line of argument that would lead to no copyright. That's news to me. I (along with many hundreds of others) was paid to develop Minecraft, candy crush and battlefield, yet last I checked, they all retain their copyright.

As a human, it is possible for you to create copyrightable works and transfer the copyright to Microsoft in exchange for money. It is not possible for Claude Code to do those things because Claude Code is not a human.

Yes, but Claude code is hardly a "someone", so that's not what the comment I replied to was arguing at all.

Re: Show HN: FablePool – pool money behind a prompt, and Fable builds it in public

#253

Post by andai »

andai wrote: post #235

I wrote this to a friend in 2022: Here's an idea: reverse kickstarter 1. people post ideas 2. good ideas go viral 3. people pledge actual money to encourage someone to step forward and build it 4. interested creators make kickstarter type videos explaining their proposal for making the thing 5A. people vote on which proposal to accept, or maybe 5B. each backer can select a project to support --- Here steps 4 and 5 ar…

It also occurs to me now that the Claude version has about 3 fewer zeros at the end of the funding target.

That seems to massively lower the bar for people investing.

Re: Show HN: FablePool – pool money behind a prompt, and Fable builds it in public

#254

Post by wongarsu »

amarant wrote: post #250
wongarsu wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you are human, and can thus create copyrighted works, and can assign that copyright when you do work for hire. Monkeys and AIs can't create copyrighted works, so there is nothing to assign when doing it for hire The other line of argument avoids that issue by arguing that you personally created the code with the help of a tool (like a compiler or camera), not just commissioned it

Sure, but that's not what GP stated at all, unless possibly if they're anthropomorphizing to the point that they refer to Claude as "someone".

GP's (or rather GGGP's) statement was "I did not write that code but I paid money". So they claim no authorship. Anthropic is a company, they can't be the author either. So the only one left as author in that reasoning is Claude.

I don't think that necessarily anthropomorphizes it. We speak of monkeys as authors without calling them human. And really the legally important fact is that there was no human author. You can also treat it like CCTV footage which is generally not under copyright because there is no human author (even though most would hesitate to call the camera the author either)

Re: Show HN: FablePool – pool money behind a prompt, and Fable builds it in public

#256

Post by nullbio »

pjc50 wrote: post #232
bensyverson wrote: post #18

This idea reads like a joke, but there's something to it. 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.

I wonder why people are more eager to pool money to pay a corporate-owned computer to build things than to the actual humans who have been building open source for decades? Much of which has ended up in the training set?

Exactly. This screams crowdfunding for AI labs. Who made this? Someone at Anthropic?

Re: Show HN: FablePool – pool money behind a prompt, and Fable builds it in public

#257

Post by delijati »

eptcyka wrote: post #234
pjc50 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why people are more eager to pool money to pay a corporate-owned computer to build things than to the actual humans who have been building open source for decades? Much of which has ended up in the training set?

Humans are more expensive.

Humans can also use LLM's even a local LLM
Post reply on HN