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

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#161

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

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.

This isn’t contradictory at all. Not Anthropic, OpenAI, nor anyone else, has ever argued for anything that’d see redistributing this leaked code as being legal. This is an entirely bad-faith argument that really just comes down to “Anthropic bad, AI bad, because copyright, and they are using copyright!?”

It’s not “underrated”. Everyone is just 50 steps ahead of you.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#162

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

panny wrote: post #117
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.

>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…

This is not how the law works. You are an engineer that thinks that they understand the law. Classic stereotype. Stay in your lane.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#163

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

lelanthran wrote: post #76
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 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 than innovation. Counterpoint: Code does matter, in the early days too! It matters more after you have PMF, but that do…

Nope. That’s what self-important engineers will tell themselves, but it doesn’t make it remotely true. You’re patting yourself on the back for throwing together a CRUD app and burning through a bajillion dollars on AWS.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#164

Post by denverllc »

UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote: post #161
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.

This isn’t contradictory at all. Not Anthropic, OpenAI, nor anyone else, has ever argued for anything that’d see redistributing this leaked code as being legal. This is an entirely bad-faith argument that really just comes down to “Anthropic bad, AI bad, because copyright, and they are using copyright!?” It’s not “underrated”. Everyone is just 50 steps ahead of you.

Meta and I assume OpenAI and Anthropic did everything they could to acquire data, even doing so illegally, such as downloading all of Anna’s archive. Now it’s an open question of whether it’s a societal good or societal bad, but it does show they have little regard for copyright law when it benefits them.

And this whole “they’re 50 steps ahead of you” nonsense is the same kind of stuff we heard from NFT or crypto bros, that we just couldn’t comprehend the infinite wisdom of a post currency world. Sometimes bad arguments are just bad arguments.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#165

Post by whilenot-dev »

UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote: post #161
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.

This isn’t contradictory at all. Not Anthropic, OpenAI, nor anyone else, has ever argued for anything that’d see redistributing this leaked code as being legal. This is an entirely bad-faith argument that really just comes down to “Anthropic bad, AI bad, because copyright, and they are using copyright!?” It’s not “underrated”. Everyone is just 50 steps ahead of you.

You okay there, buddy? What's up with the personal insults?

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#166

Post by lostmsu »

denverllc wrote: post #164
UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t contradictory at all. Not Anthropic, OpenAI, nor anyone else, has ever argued for anything that’d see redistributing this leaked code as being legal. This is an entirely bad-faith argument that really just comes down to “Anthropic bad, AI bad, because copyright, and they are using copyright!?” It’s not “underrated”. Everyone is just 50 steps ahead of you.

Meta and I assume OpenAI and Anthropic did everything they could to acquire data, even doing so illegally, such as downloading all of Anna’s archive. Now it’s an open question of whether it’s a societal good or societal bad, but it does show they have little regard for copyright law when it benefits them. And this whole “they’re 50 steps ahead of you” nonsense is the same kind of stuff we heard from NFT or crypto bro…

In US downloading copyrighted data is not illegal AFAIK

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#167

Post by ezst »

trhway wrote: post #128
ezst wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can totally wrap my head around that, and it's an interesting thought experiment, though: - building functionalities as components that are swappable on a whim requires a level of careful thought, abstraction and architecture that essentially is the exact opposite to ai slop - in this day and age we still don't make software for the sake of it, and who's financing it doesn't generally require such levels of functio…

>- building functionalities as components that are swappable on a whim requires a level of careful thought, abstraction and architecture that essentially is the exact opposite to ai slop that is only for humans really. Why we need these careful thought, abstraction and architecture? Because otherwise the required code becomes an unmanageable pile of spaghetti handling myriad of edge cases of abstraction leaks and une…

> Why we need these careful thought, abstraction and architecture?

your answer focused on maintainability, but you are overlooking what I think is the bigger problem: those components will eventually interact with one another (technically, by nature of living in the same code tree, sharing the same storage backend, framework, common libraries, …, or logically, by referencing the same entities for slightly different and complementary features). With that comes the need to centrally control what they should/can/cannot do. There is no shortcut to having to clarify (with your customer) and formally document what those layered interactions are, or, before you know it, you have multiple incompatible user access controls, row-level access policies, competing master/reference data, or different parts of the application interpreting differently the same data.

It's a pretty bad value proposition, if you ask me, to have to do so much hand-holding for a result that comes with no guarantees whatsoever (you will never know the extent of which your clean spec "made it in").

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#168

Post by jeremie_strand »

ggrab wrote: post #96

I don't think it's vibe coded garbage. Sure, the 3000-line print.ts is terrible, but there's some good patterns in there that were definitely prompted in by some experienced engineers -- the feature flag setup, the `..I_VERIFIED_THIS_IS_NOT_PATH_OR_CODE` funny type hints, the overall structure. Just the usual signs this started as a PoC but quickly evolved into something much bigger. The codebase is a really interest…

[dead]

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#169

Post by arcxi »

lmf4lol wrote: post #160
gmerc wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s 200 lines of python

do you really believe that? Its not just the training run, its the whole infra around it as well

it's an exaggeration for sure but I don't think it's a stretch to believe Anthropic spends considerably more effort on data scraping & curation than anything else

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#170

Post by kykat »

Saying that code quality doesn't matter is simply false, if people enjoyed Claude code so much, anthropic wouldn't have to block direct API access to users.

Their "product market fit" is the LLM model itself, not the harness. The harness is completely replaceable in my opinion, it's just that Claude is the cheapest way to access the models.

Post reply on HN