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

321–330 of 636 posts

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

#321

Post by _heimdall »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #216
_heimdall wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point was that they could make a compelling case though, not that they would win.

I don't know of ant precedent where the code was literally generated on someone else's system. Its an open question whether that implies any legal right to the work and I could pretty easily see a court accepting the case.

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

#322

Post by jacquesm »

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.

A linter or a formatter does not open you up to compliance and copyright issues.

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

#323

Post by dehrmann »

SquibblesRedux wrote: post #180

Can fully AI‑generated code be copyrightable? Is there evidence that the leaked code was AI-generated?

"Top engineers at Anthropic, OpenAI say AI now writes 100% of their code"

https://fortune.com/2026/01/29/100-percent-of-code-at-anthro...

> Right now for most products at Anthropic it's effectively 100% just Claude writing

- Mike Krieger, chief product officer of Anthropic

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

#324

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

sysguest wrote: post #306
lazyasciiart wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My last commit is literally authored by dependabot.

well you know 100% know what dependabot does

Leaves you open to vulnerabilities in overnight builds of NPM packages that increasingly happen due to LLM slop?

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

#325

Post by jarjoura »

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.

My company uses Claude through our own private data centers behind our own proxy that logs all requests and responses in and out. However, Anthropic heavily steers these models during RL to respond a certain way to certain prompting, so that's basically the "secret sauce" you're thinking of.

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

#326

Post by Wowfunhappy »

thechao wrote: post #320
tdb7893 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR! Through my whole career I've seen PRs where people noted that code that was generated (people have been generating code since long before LLMs). It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself (which in my experience is the case where it…

You assemble all your machine code using a magnetized needle?

You don't generally commit compiled code to your VCS. If you do need to commit a binary for whatever reason, yeah it makes sense to explain how the binary was generated.

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

#327

Post by sumeno »

tdb7893 wrote: post #281
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?

If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR! Through my whole career I've seen PRs where people noted that code that was generated (people have been generating code since long before LLMs). It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself (which in my experience is the case where it…

> It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself

If this is not the case you should not be sending it to public repos for review at all. It is rude and insulting to expect the people maintaining these repos to review code that nobody bothered to read.

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

#328

Post by rafaele »

senfiaj wrote: post #275

> Frustration detection via regex (yes, regex) /\b(wtf|wth|ffs|omfg|shit(ty|tiest)?|dumbass|horrible|awful| piss(ed|ing)? off|piece of (shit|crap|junk)|what the (fuck|hell)| fucking? (broken|useless|terrible|awful|horrible)|fuck you| screw (this|you)|so frustrating|this sucks|damn it)\b/ Personally, I'm generally polite even towards AI and even when frustrated. I simply point out the its mistakes instead of using emo…

But think of all the API calls you save if you curse at Claude
Post reply on HN