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

451–460 of 636 posts

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

#451

Post by TheDong »

Alifatisk wrote: post #444
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…

> people have been generating code since long before LLMs How? LSTM?

See, for example, this blog post from 2014: https://go.dev/blog/generate

The following comment in the blog post

    //go:generate stringer -type=Pill
generates a .._string.go file which contains a '.String()' method.

I would find it very reasonable to commit that with 'Co-Authored-By: stringer v0.1.0' or such.

Or 'sed s/a/b/g' and 'Co-Authored-By: sed'

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

#452

Post by baq »

Alifatisk wrote: post #444
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…

> people have been generating code since long before LLMs How? LSTM?

Holy shit I’m old.

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

#453

Post by chrislo »

Alifatisk wrote: post #444
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…

> people have been generating code since long before LLMs How? LSTM?

For example `rails generate ...` built into the Rails CLI.

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

#455

Post by girvo »

xvector wrote: post #447
girvo wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor babies. Again, I don’t care about them.

it's not about the companies, what a myopic viewpoint every delay to AGI results in deaths that AGI could have prevented. we are talking millions of deaths for, say, just a year's delay.

What a ridiculous, reductive and dangerously accelerationist viewpoint.

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

#456

Post by sfn42 »

ozozozd wrote: post #431
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…

You may be a bit overconfident about how clear you will be with your comments. The “dipshit” doesn’t mess everything up for fun. They don’t understand the comments written by the previous “dipshit” and thus are unable to update the comments.

Oh really? I'm overconfident in my ability to write and read simple clear text notes?

Here's what I think. I think you guys heard the "self-documenting code" BS and ate it up, and now you're grasping at straws to defend your cargo cult position, inventing these "problems" to justify it.

If you're looking at some code and there's a comment saying something that doesn't make sense to you, maybe that's a clue that you're missing a puzzle piece and should take a step back maybe talk to some people to make sure you're not messing things up? Maybe, for a non-dipshit, that comment they don't understand could actually be helpful if they put some effort into it?

Also just to be clear I don't think this is a likely occurrence unless someone doesn't know squat about the codebase at all - my comments generally assume very little knowledge. That's their whole purpose - to inform someone (possibly me) coming there without the necessary background knowledge.

It just isn't feasible to include the why of everything in the code itself. And it sure as hell is better to include some info as comments than none at all. Otherwise a bug will often be indistinguishable from a feature.

And I don't think dipshits mess things up for fun. I think they just suck. They're lazy and stupid, as most developers are. If I'm there I can use reviews etc to help them suck less, if I'm not they're free to wreck my codebase with reckless abandon and nothing I do will make any difference. I cannot safeguard my codebase against that so there's no point in trying and the fact that this is your argument should make you stop and reconsider your position because it's far fetched as fuck.

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

#457

Post by cg505 »

blcknight wrote: post #271

My GitHub fork of anthropics/claude-code just got taken down with a DMCA notice lol It did not have a copy of the leaked code... Anthropic thinking 1) they can unring this bell, and 2) removing forks from people who have contributed (well, what little you can contribute to their repo), is ridiculous. --- DMCA: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2026/03/2026-03-3... GitHub's note at the top says: "Note: Becaus…

I had this happen as well. I opened a support ticket and shortly afterwards, many or all of the non-infringing forks were restored.

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

#458

Post by catlifeonmars »

zx8080 wrote: post #370
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…

> If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR! How about compiler?

Compiler versions are usually included in the package manifest. Generally you include commit info compiler version and compilation date and platform embedded in the binaries that compilers produce.

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

#459

Post by catlifeonmars »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #326
thechao wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assemble all your machine code using a magnetized needle?

You don't generally commit compiled code to your VCS. If you do need to commit a binary for whatever reason, yeah it makes sense to explain how the binary was generated.

You do usually pin your compiler version though, or at the very least set a minimum version

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

#460

Post by zingar »

KronisLV wrote: post #450
zingar wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually good naming does plenty to explain the why. And because it’s part of the code it might actually be updated when it stops being true.

How would you use good naming to explain this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root#Overv... Or how would you name methods and variables to explain why some payment reconciliation process skips matching for transactions under 0.50 EUR and just auto-approves them, because the external payment processor rounds differently than the internal ledger at sub-euro amounts, creating mismatches that were flood…

You’ve correctly identified that naming isn’t sufficient for all communication. Name the things that stay constant in the code and explain the things that vary with a particular implementation in version control messages. Version control as a medium communicates what context the message was written for, which is far more appropriate than comments.
Post reply on HN