Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Claude Code Leak

build.ms

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 203 posts

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#101

Post by bakugo »

raincole wrote: post #60
sanitycheck wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it was the "it's not x"/"it's y" stuff and some other structures Claude is very fond of using all the time. Perhaps humans are starting to write like LLMs!

Perhaps, just perhaps, LLMs are just statistical models that literally can't create novel things, therefore any structure LLMs write was learnt from human writing? But who knows!

What kind of human writing has "it's not X—it's Y" in every single paragraph?

The answer is none. LLMs haven't accurately modeled human writing for years, current models have been smacked on the head with the coding RLHF bat so much, they all write distinctly inhuman text.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#102

Post by julenx »

kstenerud wrote: post #30

> It should serve as a warning to developers that the code doesn’t seem to matter, even in a product built for developers. Code doesn't matter IN THE EARLY DAYS. This is similar to what I've observed over 25 years in the industry. In a startup, the code doesn't really matter; the market fit does. But as time goes on your codebase has to mature, or else you end up using more and more resources on maintenance rather th…

Code quality aside (n.b. there exist many bad quality codebases before AI), a risk I perceive as an industry is we are making the logic of our businesses dependent on a few big players.

Given the output speed, it's practically impossible for developers to keep up, which directly impacts maintenance: the knowledge that would previously reside in-house, now is becoming dependent on having codebases pre-processed by LLMs.

I hope in the near future local LLMs will gain traction and provide an alternative, otherwise we are in the risky path where businesses are over-reliant on a few big companies.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#103

Post by operatingthetan »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #80
jona777than wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have flip-flopped more than ever in the last 365 days about prioritizing good code vs good product, in the AI age. This helps clarifies why. I have come to the conclusion that we just do not know yet. There is a part of me that believes there is a point somewhere on the grand scale where the code quality genuinely does not matter if the outcome is reliably and deterministically achieved. (As an image, I like to thi…

> if the outcome is reliably and deterministically achieved It's not. My favorite example: due to vibe coding overload literally nobody knows what configuration options OpenClaw now supports. (Not even other LLM's.) Their "solution" is to build a chat bot LLM that will attempt to configure OpenClaw for you, and hope for the best, fingers crossed. Yes, really.

The openclaw situation is ridiculous. Configuring it is a nightmare, even with 3 different LLMs trying to help. Then I check their docs and it says three different things. Agents will take questions and turn them into a new config file, which consists of made up settings, causing the gateway to crash.

My setup is very simple too, just two agents, some MD files, and discord. Nothing else. These people using it for real work or managing their email and texts are in for a rough ride.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#104

Post by operatingthetan »

grey-area wrote: post #16

Points from the article. 1. The code is garbage and this means the end of software. Now try maintaining it. 2. Code doesn’t matter (the same point restated). No, we shouldn’t accept garbage code that breaks e.g. login as an acceptable cost of business. 3. It’s about product market fit. OK, but what happens after product market fit when your code is hot garbage that nobody understands? 4. Anthropic can’t defend the co…

I'm a little disappointed that a bunch of engineers with unlimited access to Opus didn't do a better job.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#105

Post by dgellow »

jiusanzhou wrote: post #77

The copyright angle is the most underrated part of this story. Anthropic built their models on other people's code under the fair use argument, but the moment their own code leaks they reach for DMCA takedowns. You can't have it both ways. The clean room reimplementations are the natural consequence of the legal framework they themselves advocated for.

That doesn’t apply here. Claude code is what leaked, not the models. Anthropic definitely owns Claude code copyright and can DMCA without it being contradictory

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#106

Post by grey-area »

tipiirai wrote: post #61
grey-area wrote: post #16

Points from the article. 1. The code is garbage and this means the end of software. Now try maintaining it. 2. Code doesn’t matter (the same point restated). No, we shouldn’t accept garbage code that breaks e.g. login as an acceptable cost of business. 3. It’s about product market fit. OK, but what happens after product market fit when your code is hot garbage that nobody understands? 4. Anthropic can’t defend the co…

What exactly makes you say that "the author who seems to have fully signed up for the LLM hype train"? I feel the author is just stating the obvious: code quality has very little to do with whether a product succeeds

OK, but what happens after product market fit when your code is hot garbage that nobody understands?

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#107

Post by david_allison »

dgellow wrote: post #105
jiusanzhou wrote: post #77

The copyright angle is the most underrated part of this story. Anthropic built their models on other people's code under the fair use argument, but the moment their own code leaks they reach for DMCA takedowns. You can't have it both ways. The clean room reimplementations are the natural consequence of the legal framework they themselves advocated for.

That doesn’t apply here. Claude code is what leaked, not the models. Anthropic definitely owns Claude code copyright and can DMCA without it being contradictory

What if it's used for training data? It seems like there's no penalty for training on copyrighted materials.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#108

Post by Frieren »

jiusanzhou wrote: post #77

The copyright angle is the most underrated part of this story. Anthropic built their models on other people's code under the fair use argument, but the moment their own code leaks they reach for DMCA takedowns. You can't have it both ways. The clean room reimplementations are the natural consequence of the legal framework they themselves advocated for.

There are several ways of looking at law and order.

One way is that the law applies to everybody equally. That has been the way it works for many years, not perfectly, in democratic countries.

There is another way of working were the law is not blind. Laws are applied based in who is the one affected. This is what big tech and the ultra-rich have been advocating for. The law applies differently to nobility and aristocrats than to the working class.

So, for all this big tech companies the law is clear: I can copy from you, you cannot copy from me.

(That is horrifying in case that anyone needs me to spell it out)

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#109

Post by Normal_gaussian »

dgellow wrote: post #105
jiusanzhou wrote: post #77

The copyright angle is the most underrated part of this story. Anthropic built their models on other people's code under the fair use argument, but the moment their own code leaks they reach for DMCA takedowns. You can't have it both ways. The clean room reimplementations are the natural consequence of the legal framework they themselves advocated for.

That doesn’t apply here. Claude code is what leaked, not the models. Anthropic definitely owns Claude code copyright and can DMCA without it being contradictory

Its unclear whether there is sufficient human authorship in cc for copyright to stick on a court. Anthropics arguments would hinge on the curation of plans and the direction decisions, which haven't been properly tested as the source of authorship yet. Typically contracted implementers sign over copyright to the project owners, and this is where there is case law.
Post reply on HN