Opensource

6884 readers

143 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

Credits

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

pylapp@programming.dev

148

Creator of free Adobe clones unveils open-source Microsoft Office Excel, PowerPoint, and Word replications — Autodesk tools and other subscription-based services may come next (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 1 week ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/opensource@programming.dev

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Brandon Thomas, developer of ArtCraft, a suite of open-source creative tools meant to replicate Adobe applications for free, has now announced apps to replace Microsoft Office tools such as Excel, PowerPoint, and Word, respectively, named GridCraft, DeckCraft, and WordCraft, that are created with Claude. Thomas has shared his new clones to ArtCraft GitHub, making them free for all to download.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Argumentum ad nuh uh is somehow worse than all the sea lions saying your definition wouldn't count even if you believed it.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I didn't say anything of the sort. We all know AI code isn't original, and for the purposes of this discussion, that's fine.

My issue is the idea that he's replicated virtually every last detail of several major closed-source apps simultaneously in under a month using documented specs alone without "cheating" by using their code in some manner. Plain and simple. Prove me wrong, and I'll issue a mea culpa.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yes you plainly did. "Sorry, not buying that" is just brushing aside that they say they did exactly what you asked for.

What is so unthinkable about producing compatibility with a file format that has a test suite? Or cloning any particular feature from a high-level description and a screenshot of its dialog?

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Sorry, not buying that" is just brushing aside that they say they did exactly what you asked for.

They can say lots of things. I don't believe everything I'm told. Do you?

What is so unthinkable about producing compatibility with a file format that has a test suite?

Nothing - that's something I can believe.

Or cloning any particular feature from a high-level description and a screenshot of its dialog?

Any particular feature? No problem. The entire software suite function-for-function in just a few weeks? Without "cheating?" Yeah, that's a bit much.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago

Yeah, that’s a bit much.

Why.

We've mechanized this process. Doing it repeatedly, and quickly, is what that looks like.

This isn't a decomp searching for exact compiler output. Function-for-function means, there is a Gaussian blur filter, and it responds to the same shortcut and settings. It's not bit-for-bit identical. Is that supposed to take a month, by itself? Why wouldn't this move very quickly, once the most important functions are good enough?