[zoky]

> This company is profiting immensely off of your work

I wouldn’t say that’s exactly the case. Not to denigrate the author or anything, but this library is a relatively minor part of what Anthropic is doing. It’s a UI manipulation library, specifically one that simulates keyboard and mouse inputs. While something like that is certainly necessary for the project in question, it’s not anything that couldn’t be rewritten in-house without too much difficulty, especially since they’re only using a subset of the platforms supported by the library.

I’m sure that working on this project has provided the author with expertise in this area that Anthropic could benefit from, and so in that sense it’s still a shame that they wouldn’t give him an interview, but that’s really all that can be said about it.

[nomel]

> it’s not anything that couldn’t be rewritten in-house without too much difficulty

This is my experience, at every group I’ve been in. Extending the date a bit is much easier than involving legal for approving a new library.

The group I’m in now sunk a substantial amount of money into a lawsuit for a library that accidentally made its way in, so are now “No LGPL.” with some crazy loops and approvals required if there’s really no alternative (very rare). From their perspective, it’s cheaper and safer to rewrite than not be in compliance, unintentionally or not.

[kridsdale1]

Also worth noting that NONE of the AI companies are profiting at all, let alone “immensely”.

Google is, but not from AI.