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

I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

grell.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 419 posts

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#151

Post by mijoharas »

rpunkfu wrote: post #123
mijoharas wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't he say it was for the team integrating his input library into claude desktop? Seems pretty relevant experience.

It mentioned an "open position in the team implementing the secret, unreleased feature of Claude Desktop," which doesn't specify whether the "secret" feature is AI-related or UI-related. My guess leans towards the former.

To give the full quote, it says:

> I found out that Anthropic had an open position in the team implementing the secret, unreleased feature of Claude Desktop using enigo.

where enigo is his input library. It's quite interesting that you chose to end your quote a few words before the end of the sentence.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#152

Post by Etheryte »

ArcHound wrote: post #125
mac-mc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets make a new license: If you wont hire me, use my library and make over $100m in revenue a year, you must pay a commercial license to use my software equivalent to the total cost (equity grants included) of an average principal engineer or director who manages 50+ people at your company in your highest COL metro, whichever is higher. For OSS work that isn't mostly one author, make it go to the foundation for the O…

I agree with the spirit of this comment, but I worry about the implementation. See the comment of Manly read in this section. Once the threat of payment approaches, you can just switch to a free fork. A single person can't really win a trial against a big, well-funded company.

I don't really see how this is an issue, depending on the license text it's trivial to make the license apply in the same manner. As for winning, I think that's more of a US-centric view, if you sue elsewhere in the world there's plenty of courts that are happy to slap big tech.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#153

Post by cesaref »

kome wrote: post #138
4gotunameagain wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey mate, I would just like to say that I wish they at least find it in their hearts to reward you for the value you have provided to them. Knowing cut throat american corps, I'm afraid the chances are nil. Even if a good amount for you is peanuts to them. Which is why my position is GPL > MIT..

you're right about MIT vs GPL confusion. people brainwashed themselves into thinking MIT is "more open", because it's more permissive, but it lets others profit off your code without contributing back. GPL makes them share or pay to relicense, since you own the copyright. with MIT, they don’t need to ask. MIT just benefits big corps. GPL better protects the open-source spirit, and paradoxically, the ownership of your…

And yes, people being able to use your code for whatever they want is absolutely more open than having restrictions on how/who gets to use it.

One other model that can also work well is to dual license as GPL + commercial, so people who want to publish their work can use the GPL license but you can potentially fund the project from license sales to closed source users using the commercial licensing option. I see this a fair bit in the audio community I work within.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#154

Post by roenxi »

stopthe wrote: post #148

Unfortunately, the choice of license likely won't matter in the nearest future (if not already so). If a tech giant wants you open-source library, they will just point their agent to it and ask "to rewrite in the style of War and Peace". And more unscrupulous players won't even bother with a rewrite, as we've seen recently in the case of Cheatingdaddy/Pickle.

The flip side is that if they can technically pull that off then the cost of writing the library has dropped so low that an OSS maintainer probably wouldn't have to work too hard to write it anyway.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#155

Post by that_guy_iain »

ArcHound wrote: post #11

I'll say it: why would they pay him if he's already doing the work for free from their PoV? Oh, they ignored him. I am not sure if that puts the company in a better light.

But he's not doing the work for free. He's doing something else for free which they use. He has domain knowledge with the library that noone else has, their can either pay someone to learn it or they can hire someone with it.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#156

Post by charcircuit »

lesser-shadow wrote: post #135

Also I low how the IT hiring has a become a paradox: Companies won't hire you if you don't have enough projects in your portfolio, but by the time you will have enough stars on your github projects they have already used you to their own goals and are "not interested".

I don't think is true. I had more success removing my portfolio and letting my work history speak for itself.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#157

Post by npteljes »

kome wrote: post #138
4gotunameagain wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey mate, I would just like to say that I wish they at least find it in their hearts to reward you for the value you have provided to them. Knowing cut throat american corps, I'm afraid the chances are nil. Even if a good amount for you is peanuts to them. Which is why my position is GPL > MIT..

you're right about MIT vs GPL confusion. people brainwashed themselves into thinking MIT is "more open", because it's more permissive, but it lets others profit off your code without contributing back. GPL makes them share or pay to relicense, since you own the copyright. with MIT, they don’t need to ask. MIT just benefits big corps. GPL better protects the open-source spirit, and paradoxically, the ownership of your…

Yeah, basically MIT is "more open" in the short term, while GPL is more open on the long term. GPL, while restricting some freedoms right now, is actually enabling the remaining freedoms to be sustainable in the future. Very similar to how law enforcement works out with regards to a sustainable society, and how market restrictions work out to create a sustainable and diverse market.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#159

Post by pimterry »

roenxi wrote: post #154
stopthe wrote: post #148

Unfortunately, the choice of license likely won't matter in the nearest future (if not already so). If a tech giant wants you open-source library, they will just point their agent to it and ask "to rewrite in the style of War and Peace". And more unscrupulous players won't even bother with a rewrite, as we've seen recently in the case of Cheatingdaddy/Pickle.

The flip side is that if they can technically pull that off then the cost of writing the library has dropped so low that an OSS maintainer probably wouldn't have to work too hard to write it anyway.

Being able to rewrite existing working code sufficient to copyright-launder it isn't the same as being able to write it from scratch, unfortunately, especially since LLMs seem to be allowed to ignore quite a bit of copyright law with complete impunity.

Imo it's totally plausible that something will be expensive & time consuming to create, even with LLMs, but still easy to fork outside current licensing restrictions with LLMs.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#160

Post by woadwarrior01 »

captain_coffee wrote: post #53

Unfortunately, this seems on par with recruitment practices in the summer of 2025. I can almost guarantee that they didn't even read that application / cover letter and auto-magically rejected it. "the team doesn't have the capacity to review additional applications" Zero effort. They probably didn't even realize the relevance of that specific application for that role. Unbelievable, I swear!

There's an ongoing lawsuit[1] pertaining to AI-driven job applicant filtering.

[1]: https://www.cdflaborlaw.com/blog/federal-court-grants-prelim...

Post reply on HN