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

241–250 of 636 posts

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

#241

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

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.

I guess if enough people use it, doesn’t the tag become kind of redundant?

Almost like writing “Code was created with the help of IntelliSense”.

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

#243

Post by bandrami »

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 think the issue is not that the patches are more compelling but that they're significantly larger and more frequent

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

#244

Post by abustamam »

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 try to understand what the llm is doing when it generates code. I understand that I'm still responsible for the code I commit even if it's llm generated so I may as well own it.

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

#245

Post by sfn42 »

causal wrote: post #129
CharlieDigital wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> “BQ 2026-03-10: 1,279 sessions had 50+ consecutive failures (up to 3,272) in a single session, wasting ~250K API calls/day globally.” That's revealing waaaay more than the agent needs to know.

Doesn't look like privileged information to me.

Seems to me like everyone's just grasping at straws to nitpick every insignificant little thing.

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

#246

Post by abustamam »

otterley wrote: post #53
petcat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less about pretending to be a human and more about not inviting scrutiny and ridicule toward Claude if the code quality is bad. They want the real human to appear to be responsible for accepting Claud's poor output.

That’s ultimately the right answer, isn’t it? Bad code is bad code, whether a human wrote it all, or whether an agent assisted in the endeavor.

Yeah in my team everyone knows everyone is using LLMs. We just have a rule. Don't commit slop. Using an LLM is no excuse for committing bad code.

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

#247

Post by tshaddox »

mikkupikku wrote: post #184
manbitesdog wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

If a whole of people thought that running code through a linter or formatter was objectionable, I'd probably just dismiss their beliefs as invalid rather than adding the linter or formatter as a co-author to every commit.

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

#248

Post by sfn42 »

jcgrillo wrote: post #178
KronisLV wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, some colleagues: "Code should have as little comments as possible, the code should explain itself." (conceptually not wholly wrong, but it can only explain HOW not WHY and even then often insufficiently) all while having barebones/empty README.md files more often than not. Fun times.

Comments are great until they diverge from the code. The "no comments, just self-explanatory code" reaction comes from the trauma of having to read hundreds of lines of comments only to discover they have nothing to do with how the code actually works, because over time the code has received updates but the comments haven't. In that case it's better to just have no comments or documentation of any kind--less cognitiv…

This is honestly such a bad argument against comments.

I'm gonna note down my reasons for doing things and other information I deem useful, and if some other dipshit 5 years from now when I've moved on comes along and starts changing everything up without keeping the comments up to date that's their problem not mine. There was never anything wrong with my comments, the only thing that's wrong is the dipshit messing things up.

Doesn't matter what I do, the dipshit is going to mess everything up anyway. Those outdated comments will be the least of their worries.

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

#249

Post by vrosas »

Stromgren wrote: post #144
petcat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less about pretending to be a human and more about not inviting scrutiny and ridicule toward Claude if the code quality is bad. They want the real human to appear to be responsible for accepting Claud's poor output.

That’s how I’d want it to be honestly. LLMs are tools and I’d hope we’re going to keep the people using them responsible. Just like any other tools we use.

It’s also pretty damn obvious when LLMs write code. Nobody out here commenting every method in perfect punctuation and grammar.

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

#250

Post by WatchDog »

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…

It's a good comment, it explains the reason for the setting.

They didn't expect to leak their source code.

It's hardly a trade secret, what value is this to a competitor?

Post reply on HN