AI’s epic cash call is matched only by its ability to strangle revenue streams

As it was written, so it has come to pass.

A while back, we suggested that given how good AI was at code analysis, it would become possible to clone large applications.

And then where would we be? Here, that’s where.

An industrious individual has released source code and binaries for Claude-copied Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite programs, disappointingly not calling elements of the latter Fauxtoshop.

They’re in pre-alpha states of incomplete bugginess, but with substantial functionality, which is proof of how insanely productive AI can be given a task needing zero creativity and wearing "This is what a proof of concept looks like" and "Unintended Consquesences" T-shirts.

They could also add Karma Police to their wardrobe.

It’s clear that Microsoft and Adobe are facing some competition from what their rival describes as "clean-room reimplementations." It’s also unclear that there is any law against it.

You can’t copyright functionality, the code has been generated in Rust with claimed clean-room conditions, and while there may be something in claiming that the works are substantially derivative, there’s a big problem here.

Companies that sell AI trained on the biggest theft of IP in history are going to need unmatched legal dexterity to claim that AI shouldn’t be allowed to sully their own IP.

Chutzpah used to be defined as a child on trial for murdering their parents begging for mercy on the grounds that they’re an orphan.

We’ll have to update that.

The post-codeclone world is going to be interesting.

Everything becomes effectively open source, which closes down substantial revenue streams for big companies who had assumed lock-in.

The motivation to build ab-initio alternatives may go away, in open source as well as closed.