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.
Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
441–450 of 817 posts
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
> distilling the model with another model is not illegal per se. Just because it is legal, that doesn't mean Anthropic wouldn't reasonably want to prevent that from happening (which, from my understanding, isn't illegal either).
I love the asymmetry. When small fish tries to protect itself, big fish hits small fish with "It's not illegal" pole. When small fish points out that what the big fish is crying about is "not illegal", big fish has the right to be above the law to prevent the problem themselves. Having values requires equality. They have lost the right to cry foul when they trained their model with "but it's fair use" card. Life work…
Much as I hate to defend companies climbing to success and pulling up the ladder afterwards, this asymmetry you note is kind of the whole point a company would want to grow big. Growing an organization has some super-linear costs and generally sucks for most individuals living through it - including the management - but it's still considered worth it, precisely because big entities can do things small entities cannot, and escape the threats from smaller competitors.
It's so basic it's actually part of the reason we exist, and animals of various sizes exist, and generally why evolution didn't stop at single-cellular life.
> They have lost the right to cry foul when they trained their model with "but it's fair use" card. Life works by reaping what you sow. Now they are at the reaping stage.
Yup. Except what they're reaping is insane cashflow and ability to pull stunts like these. We can call out the hypocrisy until our throats run dry, and in ideal fantasy land this would've meant something, but here in the real world, they sow the seeds of success, and now are reaping the right to be hypocritical and continue to get away with it.
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#443The conclusion of this blog post is a bit hysterical. The intent of this steg is excruciatingly clear (identifying usage by Chinese firms that may be conducting model distillation). It's unclear on how this "punishes normal developers" in any shape or form.
If you want to proxy Claude for a legitimate reason, you’ll have potentially nerfed responses. edit: Legitimate reasons include: - analyzing what Claude Code is sending to Anthropic to verify its not exfiltrating data; - selecting a model dynamically based on prompt difficulty, or enforcing a particular model; - switching between multiple Anthropic accounts based on the project; - filtering out credentials, PII and c…
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#444Anthropic must think that their moat isn't very large if they're this worried about distillation.
Meanwhile, if you mean "Anthropic must think their technical advantage isn't very large..." then your conclusion is literally disproven by your premise.
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#445There are some commentors in this thread downplaying the severity of a service provider being less than transparent about exactly what their shipped tooling does on customer's machines. That the provider's business needs necessitate the this behaviour doesn't justify their lack of honest disclosure. That honest disclosure would render the solution to their problem useless isn't my problem. If anything, that they thou…
Whether or not you find Anthropic's behavior bad, theybhave been very loudly stating the foreign labs have been distilling their models for a while now. This seems like an obvious response to me that would be a mechanism to make that obvious.
Help! Someone else is blatantly ripping off my plagiarism machine!
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether or not you find Anthropic's behavior bad, theybhave been very loudly stating the foreign labs have been distilling their models for a while now. This seems like an obvious response to me that would be a mechanism to make that obvious.
From my understanding, distilling the model with another model is not illegal per se. Also, the output of the LLM is public domain by law, too. So, why all this "effort" to protect the model? This is a free market, and moving fast and breaking things is the norm. If they are so adamant on protecting their IP, maybe they can start by respecting others' IP, so we can start talking about ethics, equality and playing fai…
What they are trying to protect doesn't qualify as intellectual property. Only 4 categories of IP exist: (1) copyrights; (2) patents; (3) trade secrets; (4) trademarks.
The capabilities embedded in model outputs don't qualify. Machine-generated outputs are ineligible for copyright. They aren't covered by patents. They aren't trade secrets, because the model companies are selling them rather than keeping them secret. And of course, trademarks are conceptually inapplicable.
This leaves the model companies with contract law (ToS) which is pretty inept because it can't bind third parties. And technical measures, like the ones being discussed in the article. And, of course, politics.
Frankly, I think it's pretty ridiculous to even think that models can be protected from being learned from. I feel the Stanford Alpaca team demolished that idea 3 years ago.
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#447There are some commentors in this thread downplaying the severity of a service provider being less than transparent about exactly what their shipped tooling does on customer's machines. That the provider's business needs necessitate the this behaviour doesn't justify their lack of honest disclosure. That honest disclosure would render the solution to their problem useless isn't my problem. If anything, that they thou…
So they’re watermarking requests according to your environment variables and maybe changing a string format if you’re in a certain time zone? Am I missing something here? Where’s the five alarm fire?
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#448Interestingly, my device is in Shenzhen right now, but macOS has assigned Shanghai as the "closest city" rather than Hong Kong which is geographically closer. I am curious if there is any documentation on how that is assigned.
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are Chinese programmers really prohibited from accessing American models?
By the terms of service: https://www.anthropic.com/supported-countries
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to proxy Claude for a legitimate reason, you’ll have potentially nerfed responses. edit: Legitimate reasons include: - analyzing what Claude Code is sending to Anthropic to verify its not exfiltrating data; - selecting a model dynamically based on prompt difficulty, or enforcing a particular model; - switching between multiple Anthropic accounts based on the project; - filtering out credentials, PII and c…
Half of those don't actually require proxying Claude. Also, Claude has made it apparent time and time again that it does not want people using Claude Code as a "tool" in a workflow. If you want to select a model dynamically based on the prompt difficulty, Anthropic wants people to use the API for this. It was the whole issue Claude had with OpenClaw.