Live data from Hacker News

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

alex000kim.com

391–400 of 636 posts

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

#391
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, it's also not like their code was actually good (though this apply to most enterprise software). To hide a client behind closed source (it's also typescript, so even more baffling) is laughable behavior.

I'm also wondering if it's even legally valid? They constantly love to talk about Claude Code being "100%" being vibe coded...and the US legal system is leaning towards that not being copyrightable. It could still be a trade secret, but that doesn't fall under a DMCA take down.

You're confused, AI can't itself hold copyright, but the human who triggered the AI to write the code holds the copyright instead.

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

#392
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.

"frontier" as in the frontier of using everybody else's code, books, art of everyone else for a specific purpose that was never intended to, as in, not even open source projects ever imagined LLMs becoming a thing and their licenses reflected as much.

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

#393
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also wondering if it's even legally valid? They constantly love to talk about Claude Code being "100%" being vibe coded...and the US legal system is leaning towards that not being copyrightable. It could still be a trade secret, but that doesn't fall under a DMCA take down.

You're confused, AI can't itself hold copyright, but the human who triggered the AI to write the code holds the copyright instead.

[deleted]

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

#394
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? undercov…

I merely read the PDF articles you linked, then posted, verbatim, the primary relevant section I could find therein. Nowhere does it say that works involving humans in collaboration with AI can't be copyrighted. The conclusions linked merely state that copyright claims involving AI will be decided on a case by case basis. They MAY reject your claim, they may not. This is all new territory so it will get ironed out in time, however I don't think we've reached full legal consensus on the topic, even when limiting our scope to just US copyright law.

I'm interpreting your most recent reply to me as an implication that I'm taking the conclusions you yourself linked out of context. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here, but the 3 linked PDF documents aren't "a mountain of evidence" supporting your argument. Maybe I missed something in one of those documents (very possible), but the conclusions are not how you imply.

Whether or not a specific git commit message correctly sites Claude usage or not may further muddy the waters more than IP lawyers are comfortable with at this time (and therefore add inherent risk to current and future copyright claims of said works), but those waters were far from crystal clear in the first place.

Again, IANAL, but from my limited layman perspective it does not appear the copyright office plans to, at this moment in time, concisely reject AI collaborated works from copyright.

Your most recent link (Finnegan) is from an IP lawyer consortium that says it's better to include attribution and disclosure of AI to avoid current and future claim rejections. Sounds like basic cover-your-ass lawyer speak, but I could be wrong.

Full disclosure: I primarily use AI (or rather agentic teams) as N sets of new eyeballs on the current problem at hand, to help debug or bounce ideas off of, so I don't really have much skin in this particular game involving direct code contributions spit out by LLMs. Those that have any risk aversion, should probably proceed with caution. I just find the upending of copyright (and many other) norms by GenAI morbidly fascinating.

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

#395
post #342

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.

Huh weird, they must have changed the algorithm up due to the leaks. Would be pretty easy, there's a constant seed variable so they'd just need to change that, figured they might. Too bad, sorry this didn't work out

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

#396

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…

Update: it looks like the live version of the algorithm is slightly different, probably changed because of these leaks. As such the app predictions aren't accurate, sorry

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

#398
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cringe every time I see Claude trying to co-author a commit. The git history is expected to track accountability and ownership, not your Bill of Tools. Should I also co-author my PRs with my linter, intellisense and IDE?

If you accept the code generated by them nearly verbatim, absolutely. I don't understand why people consider Claude-generated code to be their own. You authored the prompts, not the code. Somehow this was never a problem with pre-LLM codegen tools, like macro expanders, IPC glue, or type bundle generators. I don't recall anybody desperately removing the "auto-generated do not edit" comments those tools would nearly a…

Some differences with the human source for those kinds of tools: (1) the resultant generated code was deterministic (2) it was usually possible to get access to the exact version of the tool that generated it

Since AI tools are constantly obsoleted, generate different output each run, and it is often impossible to run them locally, the input prompts are somewhat useless for everyone but the initial user.

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

#399
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also wondering if it's even legally valid? They constantly love to talk about Claude Code being "100%" being vibe coded...and the US legal system is leaning towards that not being copyrightable. It could still be a trade secret, but that doesn't fall under a DMCA take down.

You're confused, AI can't itself hold copyright, but the human who triggered the AI to write the code holds the copyright instead.

IIUC, a person can only claim copyright if they have significantly transformed the output. Unaltered LLM output is not copyrightable per US court decisions.

The whole thing is a legal mess. How do you know the LLM did not reproduce existing code? There is an ongoing legal battle in German between GEMA and OpenAI because ChatGPT reproduced parts of existing song lyrics. A court in Munich has found that this violates German copyright law.

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

#400
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Huh weird, they must have changed the algorithm up due to the leaks. Would be pretty easy, there's a constant seed variable so they'd just need to change that, figured they might. Too bad, sorry this didn't work out

Ah yea, I got an uncommon dragon instead of the rare duck. Did you get your legendary?
Post reply on HN