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

Post by peacebeard » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 11:30 PM UTC

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #240

peacebeard wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code has a stated goal of avoiding leaks, but then the actual implementation becomes broader than that. I see two possible explanations: * The authors made the code very broad to improve its ability to achieve the stated goal * The authors have an unstated goal I think it's healthy to be skeptical but what I'm seeing is that the skeptics are pushing the boundaries of what's actually in the source. For example, yo…

Why are you assuming the actual implementation was authored by a human?

Post by mikkupikku » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 11:32 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #247

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.

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.

Post by panny » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 11:34 PM UTC

graemep wrote: post #236

panny wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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,…

The Thaler ruling addresses a different point. The ruling says that the LLM cannot be the author. It does not say that the human being using the LLM cannot be the author. The ruling was very clear that it did not address whether a human being was the copyright holder because Thaler waived that argument. the position with a monkey using your camera is similar, and you may or may not hold the copyright depending on wha…

Post by tom1337 » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 11:35 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #151

I'm surprised that they don't just keep the various prompts, which are arguably their "secret sauce", hidden server side. Almost like their backend and frontend engineers don't talk to each other.

Post by Aramgutang » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 11:40 PM UTC

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.