This is the computer equivalent of "comfort nuts" for a neutered dog, which is really about the owner, not the dog.

And pickup trucks, for some reason.

It doesn't have to solve 100% of the problem to be useful.

My main worry is: what is the license on the code produced by Claude (or any other coding agent)? It seems like, if it was trained using open-source software, then the resulting code needs to be open-source as well and it should be compatible with the original source. Artwork produced by an AI cannot be copyrighted, but apparently code can be?

If the software produced is for internal use, the point is probably moot. But if it isn't, this seems like a question that needs to be answered ASAP.

Would it be easier, though? Medical records (in the US) are covered by HIPAA and, to my knowledge, there is no anonymized canonical record, similar to what we have for legal decision. Without that, how difficult would it be to just "make shit up"?

That's a solid gold recommendation for Anthropic, far as I'm concerned.

Their unwillingness to bend on those requirements seems like an admission that they are very interested in those things, if not already doing them.

When you vibe-code, what is the license on the code produced by the AI? What is the license on the code used to train it and does that license carry over?

As comedians say: the last few months have been disastrous, but the next few months will be disastrous, too. Just lots of ... disaster ... going around. (cue grim laughter) Sooo, as I was saying: giant meteor ...

> . I’m AI-pilled enough to daily-drive comma.ai, and I still want deterministic verification gates around generated code. My girlfriend prefers when I let it drive because it’s smoother and less erratic than I am, which is a useful reminder that “probabilistic system” and “operationally better result” can coexist.

When did the girlfriend enter the discussion? Did I miss something?

comma.ai is an autonomous driving add-on (fully open source software and hardware IIRC) for cars that don't have (full) autonomous driving but do have hardware like radar cruise control, etc. that can let software control the accelerator, brakes, steering, etc. so that the add-on can take control of the car.

The OP brings up testimony of someone other than himself who prefers when software drives their car rather than him.

The current SCOTUS has, so far, given the Trump administration a lot of rope to hang us by. If they use it to hang themselves remains to be seen.

Down the road they are taking us, there's rope for everyone. A-plenty.

Even for them, even though they may believe otherwise now. There's no loyalty among thieves.