[flagged]
The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
211–220 of 636 posts
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have worked with quite a few people committing code they didn't fully understand. I don't meant this as a drive by bazinga either, the practice of copying code or thinking you understand it when you don't is nothing new
Pre-LLM, it was much easier for reviewers to discern that. Now, the AI-generated code can look like it was well thought out by somebody competent, when it wasn't.
Have you ever reviewed an AI-generated commit from someone with insufficient competence that was more compelling than their work would be if it was done unassisted? In my experience it’s exactly the opposite. AI-generation aggravates existing blindspots. This is because, excluding malicious incompetence, devs will generally try to understand what they’re doing if they’re doing it without AI
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#213> “Do not rubber-stamp weak work” and “You must understand findings before directing follow-up work. Never hand off understanding to another worker.”
:-D
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#214Something I’ve been thinking about, somewhat related but also tangential to this topic: The more code gets generated by AI, won’t that mean taking source code from a company becomes legal? Isn’t it true that works created with generative AI can’t be copyrighted? I wonder if large companies have throught of this risk. Once a company’s product source code reaches a certain percentage of AI generation it no longer has c…
In theory, companies are all going to have an increasingly difficult time suing competitors for copyright infringement. By extension, this is also why, IMO, its important to keep AI generated code out of open source/free software projects.
The recent rulings on copyright though also need to be further tested, different judges may have different ideas on what "significant human contribution" looks like. The only thing we know for certain is that the prompt doesn't count.
My guess is that instead of enforcing via copyright, companies will use contracts & trade secret laws. Source code and algorithms counts as a trade secret, so in your example copyright doesn't even matter, the employee would be liable for stealing trade secrets.
AI generated code slowly stripping the ability of a project to enforce copyright protections though is a much bigger risk for free software.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have copyright to a commit authored by you. You (almost certainly) don't have copyright (nobody has) to a commit authored by Claude.
Where is there any legal precedent for that? In some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) the law is already clear that you own the copyright. In the US it is almost certain that you will be the author. The reports of cases saying otherwise I have been misreported - the courts found the AI could not own the copyright.
It's beyond obvious that a LLM cannot have copyright, any more than a cat or a rock can. The question is whether anyone has or if whatever content generated by a LLM simply does not constitute a work and is thus outside the entire copyright law. As far as I can see, it depends on the extent of the user's creative effort in controlling the LLM's output.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have copyright to a commit authored by you. You (almost certainly) don't have copyright (nobody has) to a commit authored by Claude.
Anthropic could at least make a compelling case for the copyright. It becomes legally challenging with regards to ownership if I ever use work equipment for a personal project. If it later takes off they could very well try to claim ownership in its entirety simply because I ran a test once (yes, there's a while silicon valley season for it). I don't know if they'd win, but Anthropic absolutely would be able to claim…
Using work equipment for a personal project only matters because you signed a contract giving all of your IP to your employer for anything you did with (or sometimes without) your employer's equipment.
Anthropic's user agreement does not have a similar agreement.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#217>Claude Code also uses Axios for HTTP. Interesting based on the other news that is out.
Just to corroborate sibling comments, I checked my Claude Code VM (native install) for the IOC and it does not appear infected.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#218There are now several comments that (incorrectly?) interpret the undercover mode as only hiding internal information. Excerpts from the actual prompt[0]: NEVER include in commit messages or PR descriptions: - The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI - Co-Authored-By lines or any other attribution BAD (never write these): - 1-shotted by claude-opus-4-6 - Generated with Claude Code - Co-Authored-By: C…
I cringe every time I see Claude trying to co-author a commit. The git history is expected to track accountability and ownership, not your Bill of Tools. Should I also co-author my PRs with my linter, intellisense and IDE?
If you accept the code generated by them nearly verbatim, absolutely.
I don't understand why people consider Claude-generated code to be their own. You authored the prompts, not the code. Somehow this was never a problem with pre-LLM codegen tools, like macro expanders, IPC glue, or type bundle generators. I don't recall anybody desperately removing the "auto-generated do not edit" comments those tools would nearly always slap at the top of each file or taking offense when someone called that code auto-generated. Back in the day we even used to publish the "real" human-written source for those, along with build scripts!
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#219I'm amazed at how much of what my past employers would call trade secrets are just being shipped in the source. Including comments that just plainly state the whole business backstory of certain decisions. It's like they discarded all release harnesses and project tracking and just YOLO'd everything into the codebase itself. Edit: Everyone is responding "comments are good" and I can't tell if any of you actually read…
Comments are the ultimate agent coding hack. If you're not using comments, you're doing agent coding wrong. Why? Agents may or may not read docs. It may or may not use skills or tools. It will always read comments "in the line of sight" of the task. You get free long term agent memory with zero infrastructure.
This.
Its also annoying to have to go through this stack
code -> blame -> commit message -> jira ticket -> issue in sales force...
Or the even better "fixes bug NNNNN" where the bug tracking system referenced no longer exists.
Digging through other systems (if they exist) to find the nugget in an artifact is a problem for humans too.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#220I'd really recommend putting a modicum of work into cleaning up obvious AI generated output. It's rude, otherwise, to the humans you're expecting to read this.
These can be flagged and reported to mods btw. We don't have to accept this.