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

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#191

Post by lelanthran »

keeda wrote: post #188
lelanthran wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I briefly worked for a startup that found PMF by calling people, sending text messages, creating social media posts, measuring engagement to create reports, and sending invoices... all manually. Right, and in that case there is no step-by-step recipe for the product. When all that is implemented in code, that is a set of step-by-step instructions for solving the pain points.

But the manual workflow was the step-by-step recipe the founders iterated on until they got traction; the product that came later was just an embodiment of that workflow as code.

> But the manual workflow was the step-by-step recipe the founders iterated on until they got traction;

Okay, and did they publish that under an MIT license? Did they give those manual workflows away for free to other startups?

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#192

Post by lelanthran »

kstenerud wrote: post #189
lelanthran wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I follow that too, when I try a new venture, but what does that have to do with "The Code Is/Isn't Important"? What you listed is important, but those findings are distilled into the source code of the product. If you open the source, you are providing step-by-step instructions on solving some problem that other people are prepared to pay to solve. Basically, you come up with a recipe for success for $FOO - why would…

None of what I said even speaks about source code. It could just as well be run by a bunch of people with notebooks, sending emails from time to time. All that matters is that the product works, and we have a scaling path once we find a market fit. Yes, that's likely to involve source code, but I've no qualms with tossing out the MVP code and starting over from scratch. Or adapting the quickie we put together, if it…

> It could just as well be run by a bunch of people with notebooks, sending emails from time to time.

And does that give all your startup competitors the findings that make your solution something that others pay for?

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#193

Post by fredmendoza »

Grisu_FTP wrote: post #73

Afaik you can run Claude Code locally but every single demo i see uses it exclusively with apis, so are the local models already good enough to be worth it or is the only reasonable use for claude code with cloud models?

honestly for most coding tasks a smaller model gets it done. qwen3-32b on an a100 80gb handles single-repo work just fine — and if you're not convinced, you can test the same prompt against a 405B on a 2×B200 with literally a few button clicks and see for yourself. no infrastructure changes, no new setup, just pick a different GPU from the strip.

that's actually why i built SeqPU.com — been at it for about a year. T4 16GB all the way up to 2×B200 384GB, billed by the second so idle costs nothing. test cheap, scale up only if you need to. i'd love to show you how it works and set you up with some free credits — just reply here.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#194

Post by mergesort »

DANmode wrote: post #53
bostik wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wrote this piece myself on my phone while I was out for a walk If you have a strategy for jotting down (or dictating) notes while walking about, I would be curious how you manage that. I spend plenty of time walking outside, and tend to get (at the time) ideas that I'd like to explore further, most of which have evaporated from my mind by the time I get back home. Or even before I can get my phone out to jot down t…

> Cannot even imagine how someone would manage both walking and writing at the same time. Some are just born with it.

And here I've been using Maybelline for nothing!

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#195

Post by keeda »

lelanthran wrote: post #191
keeda wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the manual workflow was the step-by-step recipe the founders iterated on until they got traction; the product that came later was just an embodiment of that workflow as code.

> But the manual workflow was the step-by-step recipe the founders iterated on until they got traction; Okay, and did they publish that under an MIT license? Did they give those manual workflows away for free to other startups?

I don't see how that is relevant? I thought the point under discussion was that code does not matter until PMF, and that this would be an illustrative example because there was no code until PMF.

Like, from the users' perspectives they were interacting via text messages both before and after PMF, until later down the line they were migrated to an app. At this point, the change was largely aesthetic, the core idea was the same.

Maybe we're using different definitions of terms like "PMF" here?

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#196

Post by tomjen3 »

croes wrote: post #70
tomjen3 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. But you can use AI to improve your codebase too. Plus models are only going to get smarter from here (or stay the same).

> Plus models are only going to get smarter from here (or stay the same). Training models on AI generated content leads to model collapse so they hardly become smarter if more and more code is from AI

That is a possibility, but even then the models won't become more stupid (you can just keep using the current ones).

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#197

Post by lukewarm707 »

miki123211 wrote: post #183
lukewarm707 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anthropic argue that you should not use claude API to train your model Situation A - Anthropic pays for a book - Anthropic transform the book into a new llm (transformative use) -> OK Situation B - I pay for Anthropic API - I transform API responses into a new model (transformative use) -> Not OK the situations, are clearly the same

Anthropic goes book->llm, you do llm->llm. Very different amounts of transformativeness.

this is the most honest argument for it. i respect that.

my impression is that if open models did 'distill' claude they made some interesting and productive ideas, like deepseek's more efficient attention

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#198

Post by pythontongue »

miki123211 wrote: post #183
lukewarm707 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anthropic argue that you should not use claude API to train your model Situation A - Anthropic pays for a book - Anthropic transform the book into a new llm (transformative use) -> OK Situation B - I pay for Anthropic API - I transform API responses into a new model (transformative use) -> Not OK the situations, are clearly the same

Anthropic goes book->llm, you do llm->llm. Very different amounts of transformativeness.

...idk...both transformations use transformers... thereby they both achieve adequate levels of "transformativeness" \s

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#199

Post by lelanthran »

keeda wrote: post #195
lelanthran wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the manual workflow was the step-by-step recipe the founders iterated on until they got traction; Okay, and did they publish that under an MIT license? Did they give those manual workflows away for free to other startups?

I don't see how that is relevant? I thought the point under discussion was that code does not matter until PMF, and that this would be an illustrative example because there was no code until PMF. Like, from the users' perspectives they were interacting via text messages both before and after PMF, until later down the line they were migrated to an app. At this point, the change was largely aesthetic, the core idea was…

> Maybe we're using different definitions of terms like "PMF" here?

No, maybe different perspectives on what "the code matters" means.

In this context, I took it to mean that "code being closed/open does not matter", because the context included leaking the source.

I see you're taking it to mean "code being good/bad does not matter", because the context included a startup product.

We're talking at cross-purposes. There are two assertions here:

1. The code being good/bad (or even existing) is irrelevant.

2. The code being closed is important.

Both those assertions can be true at the same time.

My point is that the code, if it exists, is a recipe for solving some profitable pain point. In that case, there is absolutely no upside to making it open, and so the code does indeed matter.

Post reply on HN