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

411–420 of 636 posts

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

#411

Post by jruz »

tdb7893 wrote: post #363
thechao wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assemble all your machine code using a magnetized needle?

I am not against the general use of AI code. Quite simply, my view is that all relevant context for a review should be disclosed in the PR. AI and humans are not the same as authors of PRs. As an obvious example: one of the important functions of the PR process is to teach the writer about how to code in this project but LLMs fundamentally don't learn the same way as humans so there's a meaningful difference in conte…

I think this is just the beginning so people are apprehensive, rightfully so, at this stage. I agree with you that AI use should be disclosed but using the commit message as a billboard for Anthropic hell no. Go put an add on the free tier.

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

#413

Post by slopinthebag »

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's a mode of using Claude Code that allows certain users to use the application in "stealth mode" to produce pull requests that seem human, but are actually AI generated, which often goes against the contribution rules of OSS projects?

At this point I would consider any employee of an AI provider to be tainted.

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

#414

Post by AbstractH24 »

dgunay wrote: post #146
perching_aix wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agents and I apparently have a whole lot in common. Only being half ironic with this. I generally find that people somehow magically manage to understand how to be materially helpful when the subject is a helpless LLM. Instead of pointing it to a random KB page, they give it context. They then shorten that context. They then interleave context as comments. They provide relevant details. They go out of their way to co…

Right? It's infuriating. Nearly all of the agentic coding best practices are things that we should have just been doing all along, because it turns out humans function better too when given the proper context for their work. The only silver lining is that this is a colossal karmic retribution for the orgs that never gave a shit about this stuff until LLMs.

You are seeing very similar trends in GTM

suddenly everyone cares about data hygiene. But it’s not like this shouldn’t have always been a priority

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

#415

Post by AbstractH24 »

KronisLV wrote: post #131
prepend wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments are great for developers. I like having as much design in the repo directly. If not in the code, then in a markdown in the repo.

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.

HOW vs WHY is a great destination between design and documentation.

Gonna try and use that throughout my life. Thanks!

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

#416

Post by galaxyLogic »

The irony of ironies is in the last paragraph:

" ...accidentally shipping your source map to npm is the kind of mistake that sounds impossible until you remember that a significant portion of the codebase was probably written by the AI you are shipping.”

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

#417

Post by thesmtsolver2 »

girvo wrote: post #195
Reason077 wrote: post #50

> "Anti-distillation: injecting fake tools to poison copycats" Plot twist: Chinese competitors end up developing real, useful versions of Claude's fake tools.

I cannot bring myself to care about distillation, when these companies have built their empires on top of everyone else's stolen data, while at the same time telling the world they're out to replace us all.

Amazing that people on HN can't distinguish between training a model on open source data vs distilling a model's outputs.

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

#418

Post by galaxyLogic »

tehsauce wrote: post #237
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.

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.

But how much AI-generated code? If it's just a smallish function or two while most iof the code was written by hand?

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

#419

Post by galaxyLogic »

LelouBil wrote: post #262
m132 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you accept the code generated by them nearly verbatim, absolutely. I don't understand why people consider Claude-generated code to be their own. You authored the prompts, not the code. Somehow this was never a problem with pre-LLM codegen tools, like macro expanders, IPC glue, or type bundle generators. I don't recall anybody desperately removing the "auto-generated do not edit" comments those tools would nearly a…

It's weird, because they should not consider it as their own, but they should take accountability from it. Ideally, if I contribute to any codebase, what needs to be judged is the resulting code. Is it up to the project's standards ? Does the maintainer have design objections ? What tool you use shouldn't matter, be it your IDE or your LLM. But that also means you should be accountable for it, you shouldn't defend be…

Sounds bit like the label "organic (food)" coiuld be applied to hand-written code?

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

#420

Post by galaxyLogic »

graemep wrote: post #235
Sharlin wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It may be obvious to you, but it has lead to at least one protracted court case in the US: Thaler v. Perlmutter. > 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. Its is going to vary with copyright law. In the UK the question of computer generated works is addressed by copyright law and the answer is "the aut…

The binary should be considered "derived work". Only the original copyright owner has the exclusive right to create or authorize derivative works. Means you are not allowed to compile code unless you have the license to do so. Right?
Post reply on HN