Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

alex000kim.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 636 posts

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#221

Post by dtran »

fatcullen wrote: post #91

The buddy feature the article mentions is planned for release tomorrow, as a sort of April Fools easter egg. It'll roll out gradually over the day for "sustained Twitter buzz" according to the source. The pet you get is generated based off your account UUID, but the algorithm is right there in the source, and it's deterministic, so you can check ahead of time. Threw together a little app to help, not to brag but I go…

This is awesome! Working on a desktop pet so the buddy caught my attention. Looking forward to making friends with my Rare Duck buddy tomorrow. Wish it was a snarky duck instead of a patient one though.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#222

Post by allajfjwbwkwja »

jhide wrote: post #212
allajfjwbwkwja wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have. It's always more compelling in a web diff. These guys are the first coworkers for which it became absolutely necessary for me to review their work by pulling down all their code and inspecting every line myself in the context of the full codebase.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#223

Post by itishappy »

manbitesdog wrote: post #161
mzajc wrote: post #37

There 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?

I suspect vibe coders might actually want you to consider turning to Claude for accountability and ownership rather than the human orchestrator.

If your linter is able to action requests, then it probably makes sense to add too.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#224

Post by nodja »

evil-olive wrote: post #90

> So I spent my morning reading through the HN comments and leaked source. > This was one of the first things people noticed in the HN thread. > The obvious concern, raised repeatedly in the HN thread > This was the most-discussed finding in the HN thread. > Several people in the HN thread flagged this > Some in the HN thread downplayed the leak when the original HN post is already at the top of the front page...why…

This blog post looks to be partially AI generated as well...

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#225

Post by pxc »

josephg wrote: post #206
mikkupikku wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A whole lot of people find LLM code to be strictly objectionable, for a variety of reasons. We can debate the validity of those reasons, but I think that even if those reasons were all invalid, it would still be unethical to deceive people by a deliberate lie of omission. I don't turn it off, and I don't think other people should either.

Likewise. I don’t mind that people use LLMs to generate text and code. But I want any LLM generated stuff to be clearly marked as such. It seems dishonest and cheap to get Claude to write something and then pretend you did all the work yourself.

You can disclose that you used an LLM in the process of writing code in other ways, though. You can just tell people, you can mention it in the PR, you can mention it in a ticket, etc.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#226

Post by computerex »

Sharlin wrote: post #215
graemep wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to the law, if I use Claude to generate something, I hold the copyright granted Claude didn’t verbatim copy another project.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#227

Post by panny »

graemep wrote: post #204
Sharlin wrote: post #188

Earlier 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.

>Where is there any legal precedent for that?

Thaler v. Perlmutter: The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed in March 2025 that the Copyright Act requires works to be authored "in the first instance by a human being," a ruling the Supreme Court left intact by declining to hear the case in 2026.

And in the US constitution,

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

Authors and inventors, courts have ruled, means people. Only people. A monkey taking a selfie with your camera doesn't mean you own a copyright. An AI generating code with your computer is likewise, devoid of any copyright protection.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#228

Post by saghm »

causal wrote: post #28

I'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…

> just YOLO'd everything into the codebase itself

I suspect that's the logical endpoint of trying to provide everything as context to an agent. Why use a separate markdown file and have to waste extra tokens explaining what part of the codebase something applies to when you can just put it right there in the code itself?

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#229

Post by rogerrogerr »

josephg wrote: post #206
mikkupikku wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A whole lot of people find LLM code to be strictly objectionable, for a variety of reasons. We can debate the validity of those reasons, but I think that even if those reasons were all invalid, it would still be unethical to deceive people by a deliberate lie of omission. I don't turn it off, and I don't think other people should either.

Likewise. I don’t mind that people use LLMs to generate text and code. But I want any LLM generated stuff to be clearly marked as such. It seems dishonest and cheap to get Claude to write something and then pretend you did all the work yourself.

The reason I want it to be marked as such is because I review AI code differently than human code - it just makes different kinds of mistakes.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#230

Post by TacticalCoder »

karim79 wrote: post #155

We're about to reach AGI. One regex at a time...

The part of TFA that does it for me: "Every bash command runs through 23 numbered security checks in bashSecurity.ts, including 18 blocked Zsh builtins, defense against Zsh equals expansion (=curl bypassing permission checks for curl), unicode zero-width space injection, IFS null-byte injection, and a malformed token bypass found during HackerOne review.".

AGI is definitely around the corner. Or not.

Post reply on HN