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

Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

thereallo.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 817 posts

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#91

Post by [deleted] »

zahlman wrote: post #58
palmotea wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you also say that "someone who wants to use an IDE / LSP features to code and not give credit to the IDE / LSP is the worst kind of person"? That's a false equivalency. > If not, what is the difference between the two for you? Let's start this out right: if they're equivalent, first you explain to us why you think so.

> That's a false equivalency. How is it false? > Let's start this out right: if they're equivalent, first you explain to us why you think so. I think it should be really obvious how they're equivalent: both are the result of a program running on a computer, and not the result of in-the-moment cognition by a moral agent or moral patient. Of course the LLM is just a tool. Models can literally be downloaded as ordinary…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#92

Post by meowface »

Value judgment aside: I am a bit surprised at how sloppily they did this. I think they could've achieved the same effect while decreasing the odds of detection via reverse engineering.

(This field is known as "underhanded code", coined by the Underhanded C contest: https://www.underhanded-c.org. It's a little-known "art"; little-known for probably self-explanatory reasons. There are much cleverer ways of achieving objectives like this. One obviously being you can move more out of the client and into the server, but the other being you can write plausibly deniable client code in a much more benign-seeming way than this. Some of what they added can only be done on the client, but I think some could've been moved, and the client-required parts could've been done more subtly and credibly.)

It's possible they knew the JS bundle gets so heavily scrutinized that it'd eventually get spotted and reported on regardless so they didn't bother doing something more subtle and duplicitous. But still seems slightly lazy.

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#93

Post by MichaelZuo »

krupan wrote: post #87
wolttam wrote: post #36

I used Claude Code for a month because my boss gifted me a sub and wanted me to try it. I used that month to complete a work project and then beef up my personal harness so I'd never have to deal with Anthropic (and these sorts of shenanigans) again.

Given the Anthropic shenanigans, do you trust the personal harness code it wrote for you?

Does anyone know what’s gone wrong with Anthropic?

They used to be a decently credible company with not-too-shady behaviour...

I hope they can actually regain some credibility…

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#94

Post by palmotea »

axutio wrote: post #88
palmotea wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you also say that "someone who wants to use an IDE / LSP features to code and not give credit to the IDE / LSP is the worst kind of person"? That's a false equivalency. > If not, what is the difference between the two for you? Let's start this out right: if they're equivalent, first you explain to us why you think so.

I just don't agree that it's a false equivalency. I see them both as "tools I use to get the job done". For me, the job is not "writing code" - it is "deliver feature", "fix bug", and the accountability, responsibility, and communication that comes with it.

> I just don't agree that it's a false equivalency. I see them both as "tools I use to get the job done". For me, the job is not "writing code" - it is "deliver feature", "fix bug", and the accountability, responsibility, and communication that comes with it.

Hello, Tom Smykowski. You have people skills!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNuu9CpdjIo

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#95

Post by charcircuit »

_alternator_ wrote: post #77
charcircuit wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it hard? Just ask AI if the update added any new fingerprinting vectors?

I'd love for you to try this and report back. My guess is that no models today will successfully run a binary analysis for fingerprinting without a lot of handholding. If you try to use Opus it will almost certainly decline (and fingerprint/ban you).

Not with Claude Code, but I trivially had Opus scan other closed source software for fingerprinting, including native libraries that it called into.

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#96

Post by AlexandrB »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #93
krupan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the Anthropic shenanigans, do you trust the personal harness code it wrote for you?

Does anyone know what’s gone wrong with Anthropic? They used to be a decently credible company with not-too-shady behaviour... I hope they can actually regain some credibility…

They've only been around 5 years and have grown tremendously during that time. There's no stable reputation you can rely on yet.

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#97

Post by llelouch »

fny wrote: post #45

This was already discovered during the source map leak. > This is not a malicious feature, but it is a weird choice for a developer tool that asks for trust. They already tell you they scan for malicious prompts, and they have no ZDR guarantees for consumers. Why do signatures like this matter at all?

There has been an anti anthropic propaganda push by bad actors across social media sites especially Reddit and twitter. This started a few months ago when anthropic started beating openai.

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#98

Post by wolttam »

ipsod wrote: post #86
wolttam wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I self-host DeepSeek V4 Flash on 2 DGX Sparks (approx. $10k) I expect DeepSeek V4 Flash (or an equivalently sized model) to reach parity with GLM 5.2 some time this year (this based on DeepSeek V4 Flash launching at GLM 5.0 parity[0], and GLM 5.2 being freely available to distill from) GLM 5.2 is within spitting distance of Opus 4.8 and is at least as good as Opus 4.6[1] which some devs were willing to spend hundreds…

How fast is it?

2000 t/s prompt processing and 40-50 t/s generation. We should see 60-70 t/s generation with DSpark support solidifying in vLLM in a few days

Recent discussion on DSpark: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48696585

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#99

Post by skeptic_ai »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #93
krupan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the Anthropic shenanigans, do you trust the personal harness code it wrote for you?

Does anyone know what’s gone wrong with Anthropic? They used to be a decently credible company with not-too-shady behaviour... I hope they can actually regain some credibility…

They just show their true face. You’ve been lied all this time. They were never “good”.

Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests

#100

Post by andai »

thih9 wrote: post #70
wolttam wrote: post #36

I used Claude Code for a month because my boss gifted me a sub and wanted me to try it. I used that month to complete a work project and then beef up my personal harness so I'd never have to deal with Anthropic (and these sorts of shenanigans) again.

How do people build something like a personal harness? Are there tools for that or is it done from scratch?

I like this tutorial for an agent in 50 lines:

http://minimal-agent.com/

And if you add one additional while loop, for user input, you can actually use it! :)

https://gist.github.com/a-n-d-a-i/5461a662ef8a7ee0a5eb7778c8...

Post reply on HN