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

301–310 of 636 posts

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

#301

Post by daemin »

simianwords wrote: post #10
slopinthebag wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it means OSS projects should start unilaterally banning submissions from people working for Anthropic.

Why? What does this have to do with the leak

Because it has a high likelyhood of being written completely by a LLM without any human thought or attention being put into it.

Being written by a LLM is a signal that the submission is of low effort and therefore probably low quality, which then puts the onus on the people reviewing and reading the submission instead of the original generator of the submission. Hence I would classify it as spam.

Open source communities also have rules against LLM generated contributions, for various moral, ethical, or legal reasons.

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

#303

Post by sysguest »

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?

well maybe?

co-authoring doesn't hide your authorship

if I see someone committing a blatantly wrong code, I would wonder what tool they actually used

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

#304

Post by redanddead »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #278

Meanwhile Claude Code is still awesome. I don’t see my self switching to OpenAI (seriously bad mgmt and possibly the first domino to fall if there is a correction) or Gemini (Google ethics cough cough).

Gemini is a terrible product, I spent $15K on it. Anthropic and OpenAI make better models, it used to be that Gemini cooked but I don't feel that way anymore

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

#305

Post by Aperocky »

blcknight wrote: post #271

My GitHub fork of anthropics/claude-code just got taken down with a DMCA notice lol It did not have a copy of the leaked code... Anthropic thinking 1) they can unring this bell, and 2) removing forks from people who have contributed (well, what little you can contribute to their repo), is ridiculous. --- DMCA: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2026/03/2026-03-3... GitHub's note at the top says: "Note: Becaus…

wow, it's also not like their code was actually good (though this apply to most enterprise software). To hide a client behind closed source (it's also typescript, so even more baffling) is laughable behavior.

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

#306

Post by sysguest »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #251
tehsauce wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purpose of disclosure, it should say “Warning: AI generated code” in the commit message, not an advertisement for a specific product. You would never accept any of your other tools injecting themselves into a commit message like that.

My last commit is literally authored by dependabot.

well you know 100% know what dependabot does

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

#307

Post by sysguest »

mikkupikku wrote: post #254
tshaddox wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like frying a veggie burger in bacon grease. Just because somebody's beliefs are dumb doesn't mean we should be deliberately tricking them. If they want to opt out of your code, let them.

> frying a veggie burger in bacon grease

hmm gotta try that

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

#309

Post by Aperocky »

bottlepalm wrote: post #274
preston-kwei wrote: post #238

I’m more curious how this impacts trust than anything else. In the span of basically a week, they accidentally leaked Mythos, and then now the entire codebase of CC. All while many people are complaining about their usage limits being consumed quickly. Individually, each issue is manageable (Because its exciting looking through leaked code). But together, it starts to feel like a pattern. At some point, I think the q…

Not much impact, Codex is already open source. The real value is in the model itself and the ability to use it with a subscription. Something you can't do legally with a clone of this code. The only thing I found interesting about this leak is just how much of a rats nest the code base is. Like it actually feels vibe coded without a shred of intelligent architecture behind it. Regardless, you can't beat the subscript…

Exactly, we should be able to build on top of the tooling agents. They are a dime a dozen similar to the models.

Power(money) lies with NVDA and people who can best harness this power.

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

#310

Post by redanddead »

wg0 wrote: post #149

I have yet to see such a company that's so insecure that they would keep their CLI closed source even when the secret sauce is in the model that they control already and is closed source. Not only that, wouldn't allow other CLIs to be used either.

I'm glad it got leaked, I wish it came in a zip file in my email when I pay over 100$
Post reply on HN