As per https://drewdevault.com/2025/04/20/2025-04-20-Tech-sector-re... I congratulate the employee responsible.
The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
421–430 of 636 posts
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
My tools just don't add such comments. I don't know why I would care to add that information. I want my commits to be what and why, not what editor someone used. It seems like cruft to me. Why would I add noise to my data to cater to someone's neuroticism? At least at my workplace though, it's just assumed now that you are using the tools.
well if I know a specific LLM has certain tendencies (eg. some model is likely to introduce off-by-one errors), I would know what to look for in code-review I mean, of course I would read most of the code during review, but as a human, I often skip things by mistake
Tbh as long as the PR looks good, its good to go for internal testing.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are probably different reasons for different people. I can definitely see the angle that trying to specifically pretend to not be AI when contributing to open source could be seen as a bad thing due to the open source supply chain attacks, some AI-driven, that we've been having, not to mention the AI-slop PR spam. But, I also get Anthropic's side that when they're contributing they don't want their internals le…
>There are probably different reasons for different people. I can definitely see the angle that trying to specifically pretend to not be AI when contributing to open source could be seen as a bad thing due to the open source supply chain attacks, some AI-driven, that we've been having, not to mention the AI-slop PR spam. But none of the other agents advertise that the commit was done by an agent. Like Codex. Your pan…
[deleted]
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#424Earlier 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…
> 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.
"Here's what AI came up with and it mostly worked the one time I tested it. Might need improving".
No. I don't want to test and pick through your shitty LLM generated code. If I wanted the entire code base to be junk, it'd say so in the readme.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linked document labeled "Part 2: Copyrightability", section V. "Conclusions" states the following: > the Copyright Office concludes that existing legal doctrines are adequate and appropriate to resolve questions of copyrightability. Copyright law has long adapted to new technology and can enable case-by- case determinations as to whether AI-generated outputs reflect sufficient human contribution to warrant copyri…
That's typical of this site. I hand you a huge volume of evidence explaining why AI generated work cannot be copyrighted. You search for one scrap of text that seems to support your position even when it does not. You have no idea how bad this leak is for Anthropic because with the copyright office, you have a DUTY TO DISCLOSE any AI generated work, and it is fully RETROACTIVE. And what is part of this leak? undercov…
> because with the copyright office, you have a DUTY TO DISCLOSE any AI generated work,
I was not aware of that. WHo has that duty and when do they have it?
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#426I hope cheap Chinese models will overtake Anthropic.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#427Earlier 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…
Usually, pre-LLM generated code is flagged because people aren't expected to modify it by hand. If you find a bug and track it to the generated code, you are expected to fix the sources and re-generate.
This is not at all the case with LLM-generated code - mostly because you can't regenerate it even if you wanted to, as it's not deterministic.
That said, I do agree that LLM code is different enough from human code (even just in regards to potential copyright worries) that it should be mentioned that LLMs were used to create it.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#428Claude Code’s Source Code Leaked Through npm. Here’s What Actually Happened. https://www.everydev.ai/p/tool-claude-codes-source-code-leak...
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not leaking codenames is one thing, but explicitly removing signals that something is AI-generated feels like a pretty meaningful shift.
Doesn't seem so crazy if the point is to avoid leaking new features, models, codenames, etc.
Where the hell are people getting this idea that it's ok to be deceptive because they are keeping secrets?
No shit they have secrets. I have secrets too. That doesn't make it ok for me to deceive you in any way.
How would you feel if I deceived you and my excuse was "oh I was just trying some new secret technique of mine"?
How did we get to this point where we let enormously powerful companies get away with more than individuals?
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#430Earlier 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.
[deleted]