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

The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

alex000kim.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 636 posts

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#341

Post by jgilias »

SequoiaHope wrote: post #273
preston-kwei wrote: post #238

I’m more curious how this impacts trust than anything else. In the span of basically a week, they accidentally leaked Mythos, and then now the entire codebase of CC. All while many people are complaining about their usage limits being consumed quickly. Individually, each issue is manageable (Because its exciting looking through leaked code). But together, it starts to feel like a pattern. At some point, I think the q…

Something that has been clear to me in using it, aside from direct claims by the authors, is that Claude is itself vibe coded slop. The number of random errors I get from using various parts of the web UI or CC that should work feels high for such a popular product. But they’re so deep in the vibes that I don’t think they can tell when some path in their web UI is broken. I tried to share a public link to a chat and…

And there’s no reason why they couldn’t vibe fix the issues if there was a process to report the bugs. Fixing issues like that could also be something that’s fully automated. Provided there’s a good test suite (not a given).

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#342

Post by cj00 »

fatcullen wrote: post #91

The buddy feature the article mentions is planned for release tomorrow, as a sort of April Fools easter egg. It'll roll out gradually over the day for "sustained Twitter buzz" according to the source. The pet you get is generated based off your account UUID, but the algorithm is right there in the source, and it's deterministic, so you can check ahead of time. Threw together a little app to help, not to brag but I go…

/buddy is live and I got a different result than in this app.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#343

Post by jitl »

sysguest wrote: post #307
mikkupikku wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like frying a veggie burger in bacon grease. Just because somebody's beliefs are dumb doesn't mean we should be deliberately tricking them. If they want to opt out of your code, let them.

> frying a veggie burger in bacon grease hmm gotta try that

I love black bean burgers (bongo burger near Berkeley is my classic), sounds like an interesting twist

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#344

Post by panny »

drzaiusx11 wrote: post #287
panny wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guidance on AI is unambiguous. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ AI generated code has no copyright. And if it DID somehow have copyright, it wouldn't be yours. It would belong to the code it was "trained" on. The code it algorithmically copied. You're trying to have your cake, and eat it too. You could maybe claim your prompts are copyrighted, but that's not what leaked. The AI generated code leaked.

The linked document labeled "Part 2: Copyrightability", section V. "Conclusions" states the following: > the Copyright Office concludes that existing legal doctrines are adequate and appropriate to resolve questions of copyrightability. Copyright law has long adapted to new technology and can enable case-by- case determinations as to whether AI-generated outputs reflect sufficient human contribution to warrant copyri…

That's typical of this site. I hand you a huge volume of evidence explaining why AI generated work cannot be copyrighted. You search for one scrap of text that seems to support your position even when it does not.

You have no idea how bad this leak is for Anthropic because with the copyright office, you have a DUTY TO DISCLOSE any AI generated work, and it is fully RETROACTIVE. And what is part of this leak? undercover.ts. https://archive.is/S1bKY Where Claude is specifically instructed to HIDE DISCLOSURE of AI generated work.

That's grounds for the copyright office and courts to reject ANY copyright they MIGHT have had a right to. It is one of the WORST things they could have done with regard to copyright.

https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/when-registeri...

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#345

Post by jasomill »

thechao wrote: post #320
tdb7893 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR! Through my whole career I've seen PRs where people noted that code that was generated (people have been generating code since long before LLMs). It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself (which in my experience is the case where it…

You assemble all your machine code using a magnetized needle?

Don't be silly.

I use good ol' C-x M-c M-butterfly.

https://xkcd.com/378/

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#346

Post by dangus »

thewebguyd wrote: post #214
dangus wrote: post #102

Something I’ve been thinking about, somewhat related but also tangential to this topic: The more code gets generated by AI, won’t that mean taking source code from a company becomes legal? Isn’t it true that works created with generative AI can’t be copyrighted? I wonder if large companies have throught of this risk. Once a company’s product source code reaches a certain percentage of AI generation it no longer has c…

In theory, companies are all going to have an increasingly difficult time suing competitors for copyright infringement. By extension, this is also why, IMO, its important to keep AI generated code out of open source/free software projects. The recent rulings on copyright though also need to be further tested, different judges may have different ideas on what "significant human contribution" looks like. The only thing…

I wonder if an argument could be made that because the LLM came up with the implementation that it’s not a trade secret?

Of course with lease intent is a very important concept. I doubt anyone is getting away with what I described.

It’s just interesting stuff to potentially rethink.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#347

Post by heyethan »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #229
josephg wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise. I don’t mind that people use LLMs to generate text and code. But I want any LLM generated stuff to be clearly marked as such. It seems dishonest and cheap to get Claude to write something and then pretend you did all the work yourself.

The reason I want it to be marked as such is because I review AI code differently than human code - it just makes different kinds of mistakes.

[flagged]

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#348

Post by throwup238 »

saghm wrote: post #239
noosphr wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issues is that you should have a work flow that strips the comments before sending the code to production. I'm sure they assumed that minifying it is enough though.

They also weren't supposed to be leaking the code itself either. I don't know enough about JS tooling, but is it possible that this might just be the pre-stripped version?

That’s what a source map is. It’s included in debug builds so that browser debuggers (and others) can step through the original code, comments and all, instead of the compiled javascript (which back in the day could become an undecipherable mess of callbacks if you were transpiling async/await to the legacy Promise API).

Unfortunately in many bundlers making a mistake like this is as easy as an agent deleting “process.env[‘ENV’] === ‘debug’” which they’ll gladly do if you point them at a production or staging environment and ask them to debug the stripped/compiled/minified code.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#349

Post by zahlman »

jaxn wrote: post #283
noman-land wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't just great advice ⸻ it's terrific advice. I'd love to delve a little deeper.

I didn't even know there was a "three em dash". Bravo.

Huh. It's displayed taking up three cells in my terminal, but laid out as if its width were one cell. Irritating. I wonder if there are any other grapheme clusters that don't properly fit in two cells?

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#350

Post by restlake »

tom1337 wrote: post #258
olalonde wrote: post #151

I'm surprised that they don't just keep the various prompts, which are arguably their "secret sauce", hidden server side. Almost like their backend and frontend engineers don't talk to each other.

i always wondered what prompts codex / claude code use but always figured they just send variables to the backend and render the whole prompt there so i never even bothered to check with a MITM proxy. turns out i should have just done that…

yea there are proxies out there for this and in AWS Bedrock this outbound logging is a feature you can enable for these and other models
Post reply on HN