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

371–380 of 636 posts

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

#371

Post by emkoemko »

ndriscoll wrote: post #265
mikkupikku wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A whole lot of people find LLM code to be strictly objectionable, for a variety of reasons. We can debate the validity of those reasons, but I think that even if those reasons were all invalid, it would still be unethical to deceive people by a deliberate lie of omission. I don't turn it off, and I don't think other people should either.

My tools just don't add such comments. I don't know why I would care to add that information. I want my commits to be what and why, not what editor someone used. It seems like cruft to me. Why would I add noise to my data to cater to someone's neuroticism? At least at my workplace though, it's just assumed now that you are using the tools.

[dead]

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

#375

Post by girvo »

ares623 wrote: post #220
girvo wrote: post #199

I'd really recommend putting a modicum of work into cleaning up obvious AI generated output. It's rude, otherwise, to the humans you're expecting to read this.

These can be flagged and reported to mods btw. We don't have to accept this.

I have been!

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

#376

Post by girvo »

xvector wrote: post #366
girvo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot bring myself to care about distillation, when these companies have built their empires on top of everyone else's stolen data, while at the same time telling the world they're out to replace us all.

Sure, AI progress comes to a halt then as everyone switches to the copycats that can't innovate, and the frontier companies are bled dry.

Poor babies.

Again, I don’t care about them.

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

#377

Post by emkoemko »

computerex wrote: post #226
Sharlin wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's beyond obvious that a LLM cannot have copyright, any more than a cat or a rock can. The question is whether anyone has or if whatever content generated by a LLM simply does not constitute a work and is thus outside the entire copyright law. As far as I can see, it depends on the extent of the user's creative effort in controlling the LLM's output.

According to the law, if I use Claude to generate something, I hold the copyright granted Claude didn’t verbatim copy another project.

why wouldn't antroipic own it? they generated it?

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

#379

Post by josephg »

Fr0styMatt88 wrote: post #241
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.

I guess if enough people use it, doesn’t the tag become kind of redundant? Almost like writing “Code was created with the help of IntelliSense”.

I don't think so. The tag doesn't just say "this was written by an LLM". It says which LLM - which model - authored it. As LLMs get more mature, I expect this information will have all sorts of uses.

It'll also become more important to know what code was actually written by humans.

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

#380

Post by sfn42 »

jcgrillo wrote: post #295
sfn42 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is honestly such a bad argument against comments. I'm gonna note down my reasons for doing things and other information I deem useful, and if some other dipshit 5 years from now when I've moved on comes along and starts changing everything up without keeping the comments up to date that's their problem not mine. There was never anything wrong with my comments, the only thing that's wrong is the dipshit messing t…

> that's their problem not mine IME unfortunately that's not actually the case. It very much is your problem, as the architect of the original system, unless you can get yourself transferred to a department far, far away. I've never managed that except by leaving the company. To be clear, I don't believe it should be this way, but sadly unless you work in an uncommonly well run company it usually is.

I really can't imagine this ever becoming a real problem. Not once have I ever worked in a place where any kind of leadership would ever give a shit about comments nor anything else in the code itself. The lowest level leadership has ever gone is click a button to see if it works.

And if anyone has a problem with comments existing it's trivial to find/replace them out of existence. Literally a one minute job, if you actually think the codebase would be better without them.

This is such a humongous non-issue it's crazy man.

Post reply on HN