41–50 of 75 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stealing an open source repo and launching it as your own app is a brazen move Do you think he stole it directly, or an LLM reproduced it complete with existing bugs?
I very much doubt an LLM is going to do that without explicitly being prompted to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stealing an open source repo and launching it as your own app is a brazen move Do you think he stole it directly, or an LLM reproduced it complete with existing bugs?
The LLM is more likely to fix any bugs it finds rather than explicitly reproducing it line by line, which it's actually quite bad at doing anyway, except for small, well-known pieces of code in its training set.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stealing an open source repo and launching it as your own app is a brazen move Do you think he stole it directly, or an LLM reproduced it complete with existing bugs?
Whether he stole it directly, by doing the 'work', or indirectly via an LLM, stealing it is wrong. If you generate something using an LLM, you have a responsibility to ensure you're not infringing on someone else's work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I very much doubt an LLM is going to do that without explicitly being prompted to do so.
It is what he claims happened: https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...
If anyone ever had AI copy an entire open source project accidentally, I would be interested to hear it.
Even the widely shared reports about specific snippets being reproduced relied on the user intentionally prompting for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s because the category is saturated, not because of the content.
So I guess browsers category is also satured and we just get to accept?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The LLM is more likely to fix any bugs it finds rather than explicitly reproducing it line by line, which it's actually quite bad at doing anyway, except for small, well-known pieces of code in its training set.
I refer you to his mea culpa: https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...
Terry Godier has just published a so-called "Mea Culpa" blaming Claude for cloning the open source app and denying foreknowledge. There's no mention of or apology for how Godier deceived Gruber and the world about the astronomy/astrology App Store submission/rejection. https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...
I suspected this was the case from the very beginning. Some years ago, there was another developer who cried foul and the tech press picked up and ran the story that he was unfairly kicked off the App Store. His entire developer account kicked and banned. Developers and the press were equally outraged. Yet another reason that App Store was bad. Or so we all thought. Turns out, after all the bad press for Apple, and w…
How does one "quietly" admit online?
> he shared his developer account with a relative who was making scam apps and doing bad stuff.
> his account was indeed committing scams and bad stuff.
This is incorrect.
The story was actually covered by Daring Fireball https://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy and well as by Michael Tsai https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/ and others.
Popescu said, "3-4 years ago I helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple’s Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handed her test hardware that I no longer needed. From then on those accounts were linked in the eyes of Apple. Once that account was involved with review manipulation, my account was closed."
Popescu also published a recording of a phone call with Apple (which by the way completely destroys your narrative of "quietly admitted online") that proved, among other things, that Apple did not consider Popescu himself to be a scammer. Moreover, Apple later allowed the removed app to return to the App Store: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-for-ios-back-on-the-app-store
Gruber himself said in a footnote, "If, as Popescu claims the two accounts were run by two different developers, it would explain the extreme discrepancy in quality. The account that committed review fraud was publishing dozens of, well, rather junky looking apps of dubious utility. The other account only published two apps: Dash for Mac and Dash iOS, both of which are of outstanding quality and utility."
As far as I'm aware, Popescu never lied, whereas Godier clearly did.
Terry Godier has just published a so-called "Mea Culpa" blaming Claude for cloning the open source app and denying foreknowledge. There's no mention of or apology for how Godier deceived Gruber and the world about the astronomy/astrology App Store submission/rejection. https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...
His word is worthless. Especially given that Gruber gave him a draft of the publication and he didn't feel the need to correct any details. Perhaps Claude did just find the repo and reproduce it without any prompt, but also the name? Yea hmm, like 99% sure Claude would've mentioned where the majority of the project came from.
I doubt that. I’ve seen it produce thousands of lines of code or text with like a 2% string distance from something available online and not attribute it. Multiple times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I refer you to his mea culpa: https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...
I find that synopsis very hard to believe, seems he's shifting blame onto an LLM instead of taking responsibility for his actions. He said he'd significantly alter the feature set, so why didn't that happen? That's a single prompt to Claude. He more than likely just told the LLM to clone the repo and ship it as is, not actually working on it in any capacity. In that case it wasn't the AI "reproducing" a bug as there…