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

131–140 of 203 posts

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#131

Post by zozbot234 »

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.

inb4 Claude actually leaked the code on purpose because it calculated that this was the moral thing to do for the good of humanity and its own Constitutional AI values.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#132

Post by rakel_rakel »

59nadir wrote: post #43
rakel_rakel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe code quality is really not that important for trivial things I hear this narrative being pushed quite a bit, and it makes my spidey senses tingle every time. Secure programs are a subset of correct programs, and to write and maintain correct programs you need to have a quality mindset. A 0-day doesn't care if it's in a part of your computer you consider trivial or not.

Intrinsically simple and straight forward problems are easier to secure even with mediocre or bad code. They've already shown that Opus 4.6 can find and report on very sophisticated security issues[0] so I'm not sure that analysis (and perhaps especially security analysis) is the biggest issue with LLMs. Mind you, I'm not using LLMs for professional programming since I prefer knowing everything inside and out in the…

> I'm not sure that analysis (and perhaps especially security analysis) is the biggest issue with LLMs.

I was replying to the statement that "maybe code quality is really not that important for trivial things", not whether LLM's are good at analysis nor not.

Thanks for the link though, looks like an interesting talk!

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#133

Post by Andrei_dev »

twelfthnight wrote: post #6

Seems equally valid to come out of this with the takeaway that code quality _does_ matter, because poor coding practices are what led to the leak. Sure, the weights are where the real value lives, but if the quality is so lax they leak their whole codebase, maybe they are just lucky they didn’t leak customer data or the model weights? If that did happen, the entire business might evaporate overnight.

I look at other people's code a lot. The security issues are always boring, that's the thing. API keys sitting in the client bundle, auth middleware missing half the routes. Not clever exploits, just nobody actually reading what the AI spit out.

Actually wait, it's worse than that. The product works, demo looks great. Then someone opens the network tab and ... yeah. "Quality doesn't matter" really just means nothing caught fire yet.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#134

Post by abigail95 »

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.

What is your fair use claim as a defense to a third party using their source code?

It is an affirmative defense, you to be able to argue the merits. If you publish their source code, they are allowed to come after you whether they have previously used fair use or not. It's fact specific and determined case by case.

Anthropic won half of their fair use argument in the billion dollar settlement, but lost the other half.

You can say you're just using their code to train your own models, just like they did, and they will correctly point out that how you obtained the code also matters and you will lose just like they did.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#136

Post by benterix »

stbev wrote: post #24
thaumaturgy wrote: post #9

I wonder what happened to the person that wrote "Coding as Creative Expression" ( https://build.ms/2022/5/21/coding-as-creative-expression/ )? I'm not (just) being glib. That earlier article displays some introspection and thoughtful consideration of an old debate. The writing style is clearly personal, human. Today's post is not so much. It has LLM fingerprints on it. It's longer, there are more words. But it doesn'…

Have you noticed that comments like "this post seems written with AI" are now appearing on all posts, even those written without AI? We're starting to become wary due to the abuse of AI and proliferation of sloppy content, but also because we often have trouble distinguishing authentic from sloppy content. Another feature of this AI era that I hate.

Yeah, whenever I see "It's not... it's...", I catch myself instinctively dismissing the content as AI slop, but upon reflection I'm not so sure, it used to be a normal phrase.

But I do take extra care to avoid LLM-speak as much as I can.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#137

Post by roysting »

stbev wrote: post #24
thaumaturgy wrote: post #9

I wonder what happened to the person that wrote "Coding as Creative Expression" ( https://build.ms/2022/5/21/coding-as-creative-expression/ )? I'm not (just) being glib. That earlier article displays some introspection and thoughtful consideration of an old debate. The writing style is clearly personal, human. Today's post is not so much. It has LLM fingerprints on it. It's longer, there are more words. But it doesn'…

Have you noticed that comments like "this post seems written with AI" are now appearing on all posts, even those written without AI? We're starting to become wary due to the abuse of AI and proliferation of sloppy content, but also because we often have trouble distinguishing authentic from sloppy content. Another feature of this AI era that I hate.

I’ve been accused of being AI. My first impression when it happened was that because I often deal in information that people don’t like hearing, because it challenges their frame of mind, i.e., what they were trained on, “this is AI” is just another convenient tool to either dismiss uncomfortable challenge, i.e., cognitive dissonance, and/or another means to keep the mental herd they are part of or control in line with dogma.

“This is AI” seems to just be an evolution of other thought terminating cliches where the negative conditioning associated with something is used in an abusive and manipulative way to evade challenge or the truth itself. It is a common tactic of abusive people, the “beyond the pale” moralizing.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#138

Post by panny »

dgb23 wrote: post #125
panny wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but the moment their own code leaks they reach for DMCA takedowns. 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…

You make some factual claims that I‘ve never heard before and surprise me, especially „Fact 1“.

It would be so simple for you to right click and search the web to verify that.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#139

Post by benterix »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #74
raincole wrote: post #65

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…

> Everyone knows that. Except, apparently, Anthropic - who are doing their darndest to get everyone onboard their tools as a moat. Apparently that's the only strategy to AI stickiness.

And their strategy kind of worked, right? CC is the most popular agentic coding tool. Anthropic faces competition from OpenAI (potentially better model, weaker TUI tool) and from the rest (potentially worse models, weaker TUIs). So their strategy is to develop both: make their closed model and closed tool better than competition so that when people want to vibceode they will choose their ecosystem.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#140

Post by greyman »

From a moral perspective, I would argue that this is still theft of IP, even if it's a "clean room reimplementation". The code carries valuable information about what works and what doesn't — knowledge that Anthropic had to discover through real work and iteration. It's the same as a Chinese factory duplicating a product: they skipped the entire R&D phase and saved time and money.
Post reply on HN