111–120 of 203 posts
That being said, if you're just beginning and looking for your market fit, or pitching to investors with a flashy demo, it doesn't need to be an architectural miracle, in fact it will waste your time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude Code (and other agent tools) are not expected to be mature. They'll all be obsolete in two or three years, replaced by the next generation of AI tools. Everyone knows that. In less than four years the AI coding workflow has been overhauled at least twice: from Chat interface (ChatGPT) to editor integration (Cursor), then to CLI agent harnesses (CC/Codex). It would be crazy to assume that harnesses are the end…
Claude Code 2.0 (and other agent tools) are not expected to be mature. They'll all be obsolete in two or three years, replaced by the next generation of AI tools. Everyone knows that. Claude Code 3.0 (and other agent tools) are not expected to be mature. They'll all be obsolete in two or three years, replaced by the next generation of AI tools. Everyone knows that. And so on and on and on. A promise of AI was mature…
Code quality matters when it becomes the code you have to maintain after six months. I'm honestly surprised by how some features of Claude Code seem to be held together with gum and duct tape. That being said, if you're just beginning and looking for your market fit, or pitching to investors with a flashy demo, it doesn't need to be an architectural miracle, in fact it will waste your time.
Extra one (3) We are getting super lenient with major failures and having a services that has only one 9 on reliability charts as norm.
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
This just validates my theory that open-sourcing old code that people have sentimental attachments for, and that you won't ever make any money off of, again is actually a terrible idea.
Everything about this leak is a long list of arguments why you shouldn't ever open source anything.
We, the developer community, have really dropped the ball here.
> So of course the first thing people did was point and laugh. This just validates my theory that open-sourcing old code that people have sentimental attachments for, and that you won't ever make any money off of, again is actually a terrible idea. Everything about this leak is a long list of arguments why you shouldn't ever open source anything. We, the developer community, have really dropped the ball here.
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.
Did they actually? Someone can go to prison for 5 years for that.
Fact 1: AI generated code has no copyright, so the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not apply.
Fact 2: Misrepresenting your copyright ownership under the DMCA is felony perjury.
Fact 3: The existence of undercover.ts in the leak is grounds to void any copyright claims on whatever human written code might have existed in Claude Code. You have a DUTY TO DISCLOSE any AI generated code in your copyrighted work. undercover.ts HIDES DISCLOSURE to FRAUDULENTLY claim all the code is human written when it is not.
Given the current administration has a bone to pick with Anthropic, it was a VERY BAD IDEA for them to send false DMCA takedowns to github. Someone at Anthropic may be the very first ever to go to prison under that section of the DMCA.
Good luck!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If anything, this is a question of whether you owe royalties to the owner of IP you consumed in your life since it became part of and trained your mind, identity, and outputs too.
According to IP owners ever since things were digitized, you technically own nothing and simply paid for an authorization to use any given IP for the duration that the IP owner authorized you to use it and you continue to pay, so pay your monthly meat-AI bill to pay for all the IP your mind has been trained on.
> So of course the first thing people did was point and laugh. This just validates my theory that open-sourcing old code that people have sentimental attachments for, and that you won't ever make any money off of, again is actually a terrible idea. Everything about this leak is a long list of arguments why you shouldn't ever open source anything. We, the developer community, have really dropped the ball here.
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 aristo…
Nobody, not even Anthropic, is arguing that they should be able to host other people's paid content for free. The crux of their fair-use defense is that models are transformative works, just like parodies or book reviews, and hence should be treated as fair use.
You can't just take a pile of books (no pun intended) and turn that into Claude in a day with 30 lines of Python, there's a lot of work and know-how on the Anthropic side that goes into making a good LLM.