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

541–550 of 636 posts

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

#541

Post by Orygin »

jonnybgood wrote: post #540
Orygin wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code may not be, but opening a Merge Request undercover may be unlawful: > Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system

That merge request would be AI generated content. You wouldn't be interacting directly with the AI system that opened it.

Depends if it's a closed loop agent. If the agent opens the request, writes the body and is triggered by an answer on the MR, then I'd expect the law to cover this.

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

#542

Post by saghm »

throwup238 wrote: post #348
saghm wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also weren't supposed to be leaking the code itself either. I don't know enough about JS tooling, but is it possible that this might just be the pre-stripped version?

That’s what a source map is. It’s included in debug builds so that browser debuggers (and others) can step through the original code, comments and all, instead of the compiled javascript (which back in the day could become an undecipherable mess of callbacks if you were transpiling async/await to the legacy Promise API). Unfortunately in many bundlers making a mistake like this is as easy as an agent deleting “proces…

I see. I had read that it was a source map that was leaked here specifically, but my vague understanding of the term was mostly that it might be a way to trace back JavaScript lines to the TypeScript it compiled from, since I don't have much of an understanding of all of the other various steps that are part of a JavaScript build nowadays.

I think I still disagree with the parent comment premise that "they probably thought minifying was enough", since it sounds likely they were doing all of those other steps. The issue seems like insufficient auditing of the build process (especially if agents were involved, which seems likely for Anthropic) rather than not doing all of the usual JS build stuff.

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

#543

Post by justinclift »

pc86 wrote: post #535
rainsil wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the US Copyright Office, fully AI-generated works aren’t eligible for copyright because they don’t have human authors. They’re in the public domain by default. See: https://library.osu.edu/site/copyright/2026/02/06/artificial...

What constitutes "fully AI-generated" when you're in an edit loop between an agent and a human?

It seems like it's an active area of legal thought (IANAL though).

Recent relevant discussion about this in the chardet repo between the chardet maintainer who relicensed the chardet code and Richard Fontana, a well regarded lawyer US IP lawyer who's worked for Red Hat (now IBM) for decades:

https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/334#issuecomment-4...

My take away from the conversation there is that being in an edit loop, where the files are AI generated through your control rather than directly editing the files yourself, means the files are then "AI authored" for copyright protection purposes rather than yourself.

But I double stress, I'm not a lawyer so may have misunderstood things radically.

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

#544

Post by MeetRickAI »

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…

[dead]

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

#545

Post by Monotoko »

Pxtl wrote: post #133
andoando wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive seen it say coauthored by claude code on my prs...and I agree I dont want it to do that

Why not? What's wrong with honesty?

There's some repos I'm unashamedly keeping alive with Claude alone and he gets co-authorship - basically stuff in "maintenance mode" that I still use that I've forked and had Claude drag it into 2026

A quick PR where I've found the bug myself in the code, and ask Claude to write the fix because it's faster, and verified it - I don't include Claude's co-authorship.

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

#546

Post by kurtis_reed »

tmountain wrote: post #500
Levitating wrote: post #497

I am still just shocked that Claude Code was written in Typescript, not C++, Rust or Python. It also somehow messed up my alacritty config when I first used it. Who knows what other ~/.config files it modifies without warning.

I'm surprised Python is on that list. TypeScript doesn't seem like a terrible choice, as it can leverage vast ecosystems of packages, has concurrency features, a solid type system, and decent performance. C++ lacks as robust of a package ecosystem, and Python doesn't have inbuilt types, which makes it a non-starter for larger projects for me. Rust would have been a great choice for sure.

"Python doesn't have inbuilt types"

False.

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

#547

Post by km144 »

noman-land wrote: post #207
CharlieDigital wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments are the ultimate agent coding hack. If you're not using comments, you're doing agent coding wrong. Why? Agents may or may not read docs. It may or may not use skills or tools. It will always read comments "in the line of sight" of the task. You get free long term agent memory with zero infrastructure.

This isn't just great advice ⸻ it's terrific advice. I'd love to delve a little deeper.

[dead]

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

#548

Post by jasomill »

__float wrote: post #352
sumeno wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sometimes code generation is a useful tool, and maybe people have read and reviewed the generator. The difference here is that the generator is a non-deterministic LLM and you can't reason about its output the same way.

As a rule, I commit the input to the code generation tool, i.e., what the GPL refers to as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", generate as part of the build process, and, where possible, try to avoid code generation tools designed around the assumption that its output will be maintained rather than regenerated from modified input.

As for LLM code assistants, I don't really view them as traditional code generation tools in the first place, as in practice they more resemble something in between autocomplete and delegating to a junior programmer.

As for attribution, I view it more or less the same way as "dictated but not read" in written correspondance, i.e., an disclaimer for errors in the code, which may be considered rude in some contexts, and a perfectly acceptable and useful annotation in others.

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

#549

Post by ivanjermakov »

Levitating wrote: post #497

I am still just shocked that Claude Code was written in Typescript, not C++, Rust or Python. It also somehow messed up my alacritty config when I first used it. Who knows what other ~/.config files it modifies without warning.

> Who knows what other ~/.config it modifies without warning

Me. My .config is git-versioned :)

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

#550

Post by drzaiusx11 »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #425
panny wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Currently, the US copyright application process has an AI disclosure requirement for the determination of applicability of submitted works for protections under US copyright law.

The copyright office still holds that human authorship is a core tenet of copyrightability, however, whether or not a submission meets the "de minimis" amount of AI-generated material to uphold a copyright claim is still being decided and refined by the courts and at the moment the distinction appears to fall on whether the AI was used "as a tool" or as "an author itself", with the former covered in certain cases and the latter not.

The registration process makes it clear that failure to disclose submissions in large contribution authored by contractor or ai can result in a rejection of copyright claim now or retroactive on discovery.

Post reply on HN