I've been having a silent panic attack for the last 3 days, and I don't really have anyone to talk to that would understand my concern.<p>I run a small pro audio company, we make guitar pedals and audio effects mostly. My current key objective is building up a processor similar to the Eventide H90, that would compete on having top-notch algorithms for reverb, delay, chorus etc. we already have single-effect pedals on the market that are very successful.<p>In the past 72 hours I have ONE-SHOT decompiled 3 of my main competitors products, including the Strymon Big Sky. I just... have their award winning algorithms now. Like, I could in theory just stick them in a box and resell them. It took one prompt and 3 hours for opus 5.5 to work that out.<p>The lexicon 224 then got added. While Claude was prepping It found someone else had already done the same thing 1 weeks earlier and dumped the result on GitHub, so it just stole that code and saved some time. It took all of 20 minutes to do the entire Ursa Major product range.<p>And yes, I've tested them all - and they all sound phenomenal. I specifically asked Claude to first build an emulator and execute the original firmware/ROM so I could be certain it wasn't just making "something similar" but actually executing the same code. Then I asked it to convert it into a self contained c++ library and compare the result to the emulator.<p>The problem is, everyone can now do this to my products as well. Basically, anyone with a Claude subscription can now rip of any best-in-class algorithm from any competitor. While I'm not going to do that, I know there are 30 Chinese companies that happily would.<p>The moat of hardware effects processors has just vanished.
But that’s a good thing. Instead of someone being able to just lock the knowledge away, now we can all have it. And that means we can make better things.<p>It sucks if you’re a rent seeker, but I’m enjoying this post-IP world. I don’t care who reads my source code anymore, code is disposable. It’s expertise that matters now.
If an asset doesn't exist to hold value, how do you "protect" expertise? How do you differentiate it? How do you justify investment if someone else will steal anything of value you create?<p>For a short while, it's great, but in the long run, it makes it difficult to financially invest in building software with either time or money.
The problem is that many of us seek employment from rent seekers. It's all great in theory, but not fun in the in-between times if you're trying to pay your own rent and find placement and nobody wants to bring anyone new on board because they can't find ways to make it profitable.
> Instead of someone being able to just lock the knowledge away, now we can all have it<p>Uhh I think you're missing a tiny 3 trillion dollar detail. I understand though, something that small and inconsequential is easy to overlook.
Speaking as a hardware engineer, the moat did <i>not</i> vanish. You have simply assumed you were on the right side of the moat this whole time when in reality you dug half a trench and threw a glass of water in it.<p>If your firmware is open for someone to reverse engineer now, it has <i>always</i> been open. The real moat is firmware security, encryption, secure locked down hardware. Nobody, not even LLMs, can reverse your firmware if they can't obtain a cleartext copy of it.<p>You <i>must</i> use microcontrollers with security features, encrypted firmware, secure key stores. If you don't, you never had a moat in the first place. Your only security is the belief that it's too much effort to reverse your product. Security through obscurity is the moat that has vanished and <i>everyone</i> has been screaming for decades that this is not secure by any stretch of the imagination.
I think you are torturing the analogy.<p>A moat isn’t a perfect defense. It’s a delay tactic that keeps the enemy from coming right up to your wall and climbing it or breaking it down. While you defend your moat, you whittle down the attackers so even when they do cross it they can be more easily defeated.<p>Moats and high walls became obsolete when canon fire became common.<p>Claude isn’t just a faster way to cross the moat, it’s gunpowder, and with it the rules have fundamentally changed.<p>Firmware security is useless if your product can be bought tested and reverse engineered through multiple trials. So long as you have something that can be understood and used by humans, you have something that can be reverse engineered.<p>Having the code accessible makes it easier, but just having both input and output is sufficient.
Reverse engineering of audio effects can be done completely independently of the hardware that generates it.
What if the audio effect is:<p>Take an audio stream, apply STT, interpret the result as an algorithm, run the algorithm, take its output, apply TTS, then send that audio stream to the output.
Can't help but feel that AI is the killing of the golden goose. We thought it would kill jobs, but it may just end up killing entire industries.<p>Intellectual property incentivized many and laid many golden eggs, but why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours?<p>But who knows, maybe imploding the software industry is a good thing. I may lose my house in the process, but I think we could all get back to touching a little more grass.
Intellectual property is terrible for society on the whole.<p>You could just as easily argue "why are 200 companies burning through people and natural resources to come up with the exact same thing and then marketing it as different" as you can say "why would anyone create anything without the ability to making oodles of money by restricting imitation".
> but why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours?<p>The same reason I have open sourced every line of code I have written in the last several years, even new inventions. Because it is good for society, and good for my reputation to show what I am capable of which has been very good for my career.<p>Better to be the one to open source it before someone else does.<p>The only business model left is convenience tax. Save people time and they give you money.
> why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours<p>When that happens it shouldn't be forgotten that people (broadly speaking) chose this. AI proponents lit intellectual property on fire out of self-interest.
it will also help with the environment by stopping a lot of forced obsolescence for no reason (apple rolls out a new OS every year, then magically wacom stops supporting perfectly working tablets in their new driver versions)
IDK about the grass, bro, I've mostly just seen a lot of pavement since I lost my SWE job
> but why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours?<p>I think it goes deeper than that, in that the AI era will eventually force us to rethink how we value each other. It used to be economic scarcity: I provide a service that very few people can provide, therefore I make a lot of money (supply and demand.) Now we're moving to a place where most anybody can do anything, so our value system needs to evolve, as well. Instead of valuing scarcity, perhaps we should value personal creativity and self-expression. Kind of like paying money for a concert, or for someone's personal painting, even though you can listen online, or you can just have AI generate the same painting. It comes more from wanting to support people than to supply scarcity-based demand.<p>I think this idea makes many peoples' eyes roll, but IMO that's a testament to where we are today as a society. Most interactions get reduced to just business transactions without the humanity in it, and that's where our problems come from.
That's a nice vision but if AI and robots end up replacing most jobs then we're first going to suffer a total collapse in living standards across the world, until we replace capitalism at least. When the economy no longer relies on labour people won't have anything to trade in exchange for basic necessities.
You only have to look at the <i>current</i> situation in China to see that the problem is not capitalism, or communism, at least not by itself:<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/china-economy-gen-z-f9058941" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/world/china-economy-gen-z-f9058941</a><p><a href="https://www.economist.com/china/2019/11/14/homelessness-has-become-a-problem-in-chinas-cities" rel="nofollow">https://www.economist.com/china/2019/11/14/homelessness-has-...</a><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si2zT-wCs3c" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si2zT-wCs3c</a><p>We all know that "real" communist societies like North Korea are worse, much, much worse. In fact within China how bad this is varies enormously. If you're in a "rope village" somewhere deep inland, having the finest house in the entire city is arguably worse than homelessness in Beijing, but the party won't let you leave except as homeless, because you're allocated a "Household" (Hukou) and you aren't allowed to leave.<p>And, of course, half the problem is the very structure of the communist party itself: local officials hide the problem, because if they don't, they'll be purged or at the very least won't see promotions, ever. Which means that the police will be using violence to hide the problem rather than fix it.<p>AI can provide incredible wealth, or immeasurable misery, in both capitalist and communist societies. That is not what makes the difference, that is just how political parties like to frame themselves and so the argument why you should choose "left" or "right".<p>Capitalism and private home ownership can certainly provide housing, but if you go too far or not far enough in private ownership and "protecting capital" they won't. And communism can certainly fix homelessness (the Soviets did, for example), except nowadays they just won't.<p>AI will provide more tools for people with capital, which primarily will be the government. Whether that solves, say, homelessness is a choice, in either system.
This was a huge problem before AI due to Amazon and global internet marketplaces. Why spend R&D dollars developing an amazing product when Chinese knockoffs will show up 6 months later? I wonder how many great consumer products don't exist because there's no way to recoup your R&D costs and develop a healthy market.<p>Imagine if there were no intellectual protections for pharmaceuticals. The government would have to take over R&D.
Don't worry, you'll be making hardware pedals with webassembly and remote attestation soon enough, and we'll be back to the status quo.
Then you will compete on different things, i guess. For audio hardware, the physicality and experience of using it is important. Have better knobs, better usability, and the best algorithms!<p>Also, I guess with agents it should be possible to explore new algorithms more efficiently. You may discover something cool! And yes, anyone can copy it, but you will still have first mover advantage. Also, in music tech brands matter a lot. People love getting stuff from small “artisan” companies.
Why don’t you do as much of this as possible for the next six months and make the best product you can.<p>It sounds like it will go faster if you use coding agents.<p>Anyone copying you will have to do the same.<p>Perhaps spend a month with your agent making it harder for other agents to reverse engineer?
That really must be scary. I'd hope at least in the world of music/audiophilia (where gold plates hdmi cables rule) you could focus on the upper ends of the market? Even if the sound is similar you hopefully will have an audience that appreciated the fit and finish and high quality components. Surely will be a challenge but when I see teardowns from China they almost always cheap out with paper caps and such. And while it may be exhausting perhaps you can turn it to your favor (where IP permits) to increase your product range? Godspeed though!
The Chinese were already hacking your firmware if it was worth hacking at all. The only thing that's changed is that now you can, too. What's not to like?<p>Before the Singularity: build good products, offer them at a fair price and support them well, succeed at business.<p>After the Singularity: build good products, offer them at a fair price and support them well, succeed at business.
I guess patents are becoming more important now ... :(
One solution is to encrypt the firmware and keep the decryption keys on the hardware side, preferably in something that’s tamper resistant.<p>It’s not ideal. It has serious drawbacks. It makes development and updates a PITA. But it does make it much harder to decompile your firmware.
A lot of the security features on microcontrollers are poorly implemented. Here's an example where someone recovered the encryption key on a consumer device with encrypted firmware: <a href="https://garyodernichts.blogspot.com/2024/10/looking-into-nintendo-alarmo.html" rel="nofollow">https://garyodernichts.blogspot.com/2024/10/looking-into-nin...</a> . The microcontroller supports firmware encryption with a 128-bit AES key, which gets written to 4 32-bit write-only registers. Because it's split up like this, it's possible to find 1/4 of the key by writing every possible value to one of the registers and checking that the output matches, before repeating with the other 3 registers. This means that the number of possible combinations to check is reduced from (2^128) to (4*(2^32)), which can be brute forced in a few hours.
Even so, if you can manage to get a agent into the loop of "change variable > inspect results > do change > repeat", you can replicate everything from server-side game servers to audio effects, as long as you manage to get the data into a format they can either "visually" inspect, or inspect by data. For audio, I've had success replicating synth sounds and effects by giving them MIDI access to analog hardware, spectrograms and a suite of other unix tools.<p>The tricky part is figuring out the workflow, once that's in place, you can encrypt the protocol itself as much as you want, the output (audio, video, JSON, whatever) has to go somewhere, and that can be captured and replicated.
Or just ask Claude what is the best way to protect your IP. It should know its capabilities.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next version of Opus or whatever Anthropic has just eliminates these capabilities. I mean, we got DMCA shoved down our throats. What's stopping them from doing something similar again, I mean, we have a 70 or 70+ year copyright laws now, lol!
Already for some years. You can now buy decent metal (enclosure) guitar pedal stompboxes for 5 USD… who can produce for that? The only thing that counts is ideas.
No product is now safe. Everything from photoshop to office suite to harvey are being reverse engineered.<p>Out of curiosity, did you just use vanilla Claude Code with Opus 5.5, or did you use this: <a href="https://github.com/morluto/rea" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/morluto/rea</a>?
everybody cloned stuff before. You keep your clients because you offer more than the lowest available price: the human touch (support, design, quality, problem solving)<p>LLMs only appear to do that, if they do it effectively is because you can.
You should talk to a lawyer. And not post something like this publicly
The only solution is reputation and selling to the public domain, instead of to individuals:<p>if people like your stuff, you'll have a reputation because of what you made in the past, then you can offer to release your next project to the public domain if some crowdfunding goal is met.
Maths are just maths again!<p>Enough with patents, NDAs and trade secrets.
This is interesting. I don't know if this is just cope, but it makes me think of how the schematics of a Soldano SLO100 are readily available. A true feat of engineering. Anyone could build one because the information is out there. Why don't they?<p>I know that it's much easier to get JLC to make a board and then flash some stolen firmware on it than it is to build a tube amplifier, but musicians are weird creatures.<p>All I know is, I would rather be in the before times.
From
"Simulate cassette tape audio profiles using FFmpeg" <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49062870">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49062870</a> :<p>> <i>Neural Amp Modeler</i> (is open source)<p>> JUCE on embedded, Rust DSP<p>> <i>A board of guitar pedals with IDK one USB-A and a USB-C adapter with OSC and MIDI support; USB MIDI trololo pedals</i><p>There are multiple products like this on Amazon+Shopify w/ linked inventory now
bro, music people are buying switches - like layer 2 switches - for better audio quality.