461–470 of 817 posts
The 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.
Why would a Chinese firm distilling the product use Claude code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No fire, just people looking for a reason to be upset. "They didn't tell us they were secretly checking for ToS violations" is their reason this time.
It is not checking that is the problem, it is sending obfuscated information about the user without disclosure. That is unacceptable in any context, let alone a tool that requires an unprecedented level of trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if they decide you're not patriotic enough, serving you evil models, because one man with a lot of shmeckels told them to?
Then I could just.. cancel my subscription and stop paying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not checking that is the problem, it is sending obfuscated information about the user without disclosure. That is unacceptable in any context, let alone a tool that requires an unprecedented level of trust.
Do you honestly think that no service out there collects basic analytics?
Codex CLI is FOSS, unlike Claude Code, so Codex is less likely to do things like that, and it's one more reason to avoid Claude Code and Claude in general. Hopefully, many eyes will be looking into Codex for malicious things like that.
Genuine question though, why would I care about this if I'm paying for a subscription and adhering to TOS. I'm very skeptical about their privacy policy, business practices, and so on, but am curious what the negative about this is. Seems like it would work to my favour as a customer pushing back any date of the cutting of subsidies. That said, these fraudulent proxies are helping Chinese labs keep up, which might be…
> why would I care about this
It's up to you, of course. But I think you're making a mistake in assuming it could, in any way, benefit you as a customer. This isn't specific to this company or the particulars of the business that they're in.
Simply put, you stand to lose more than they do and they are relentless in seeking, maintaining and exploiting any leverage they have over you. Further, any power they gain over one individual customer tends to generalise to all customers. Further further, one company's leverage is another company's right.
Not being bothered by the practice is accepting the terms set by the business. Acceptance invites escalation. Relentless.
Even more simply put, you should care because this is how you get John Deere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a Chinese firm distilling the product use Claude code?
[the comment was misinformed, deleted]
Can you cite specifically what in the linked article or discussion leads you to say that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly find it crazy how many people trust them for their business needs. For a business, you want consistency and no surprises. With them you get exactly the opposite.
No, that's not correct. There are two types of business. One wants to be steadily growing, but the other wants to move fast and break things and either succeed or fail quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. Why would Anthropic get to dictate how someone uses a "tool" (that's literally what Claude Code is... a tool in a workflow) They're swimming upstream. Trying to maintain a rapidly shrinking moat and not being very creative about it. Making enemies of your users is often a failing strategy.
This is a direct conflict in framing. They clearly do not see Claude Code as a "tool in a workflow" but instead as a service that will eventually replace all programmers.
I think the self-evident quality of the various parts of the Claude Code universe is a pretty obvious indicator of the problems with that approach. It is still important to understand a party's thinking if you want to understand their position.
> They're swimming upstream. Trying to maintain a rapidly shrinking moat and not being very creative about it. Making enemies of your users is often a failing strategy.
Time will tell, but I agree that they are indeed in a tough spot. Probably not for the reasons that they think.