Live data from Hacker News

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

alex000kim.com

551–560 of 636 posts

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

#551
post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they acquired Bun. To look at it? Also you needed a leak to know that CC, that is out for 1 year, is in TS?

> Why do you think they acquired Bun I don't know why they acquired Bun. Surely not because there's no other means to write command line programs. > Also you needed a leak to know that CC, that is out for 1 year, is in TS? What, are you shaming people for not being aware what (obfuscated) code some 1 year old software is written in?

So what do you think the obfuscated .js code in a 2026 engineering project was generated with? Nim?

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

#552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic acquired Bun. Clearly, Bun is not a runtime for C++, Rust, or Python. For an engineering project, strongly typed TypeScript was basically the only possible choice for them.

I am not following your logic. Anthropic acquired Bun and so all of their end-user software should use it? Or am I missing sarcasm?

Is Anthropic's acquisition of Bun alone still not enough to infer their tech stack? What more obvious signals would be needed?

Also, honestly, given the speed constraints of large models, it makes almost no difference what language an agent is written in. The small performance differences between programming languages do not even begin to matter compared with network latency, let alone the speed at which a large model streams tokens.

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

#553
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not accelerationist, it's just fact.

Not saying we shouldn't be careful with AGI. But the glib tone of "who cares if these companies die?" is where one needs to consider the consequences of AGI not happening or being delayed.

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

#554
post #12

I don't understand the part about undercover mode. How is this different from disabling claude attribution in commits (and optionally telling claude to act human?) On that note, this article is also pretty obviously AI-generated and it's unfortunate the author didn't clean it up.

How do you know this? I think of myself as being decent at spotting AI-generated text, so that I may have missed something is odd.

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

#555
post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the US Copyright Office, fully AI-generated works aren’t eligible for copyright because they don’t have human authors. They’re in the public domain by default. See: https://library.osu.edu/site/copyright/2026/02/06/artificial...

What constitutes "fully AI-generated" when you're in an edit loop between an agent and a human?

I think that may not be answerable until a case concerning it has been heard and ruled on. A lawyer may have a better answer for you, but if I had to bet then I'd put $100 on it being something like 'it depends'.

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

#556
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive seen it say coauthored by claude code on my prs...and I agree I dont want it to do that

Why not? What's wrong with honesty?

Claude is not a person and AI doesn't gain authorship let alone copyright.

Unless you literally vibe coded it, Claude is just a tool. This is the equivalent of Apple appending "Sent from my iPhone" as a signature to outgoing emails. It's advertising tool use, not providing attribution. The intent isn't to disclose that AI was used in creating the code, the intent is to advertise the AI product.

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

#557
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a ridiculous, reductive and dangerously accelerationist viewpoint.

It's not accelerationist, it's just fact. Not saying we shouldn't be careful with AGI. But the glib tone of "who cares if these companies die?" is where one needs to consider the consequences of AGI not happening or being delayed.

I struggle with the idea that AGI (which I don't think is coming via LLMs, but sidebar) will improve the outcomes of lives and not end up as a tool of privilege and control.

Pitch me on this utopian outlook, because nothing about any of the Frontier companies points away from dystopia to me

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

#559
For me one of the most interesting aspects is how compaction works. It turns out compaction still preserves the full original pre-compaction conversation in the session jsonl file, and those are marked as "not to be sent to the API". Which means, even after compaction, if you think something was lost, you can tell CC to "look in the session log files to find details about what we did with XYZ". I knew this before the leak since it can be seen from the session logs. Some more details:

  The full conversation is preserved in the JSONL file, and messages
  are filtered before being sent to the API.

  Key mechanisms:

  1. JSONL is append-only — old pre-compaction messages are never deleted. New messages (boundary
  marker, summary, attachments) are appended after compaction.
  2. Messages have flags controlling API visibility:
    - isCompactSummary: true — marks the AI-generated summary message
    - isVisibleInTranscriptOnly: true — prevents a message from being sent to the API
    - isMeta — another filter for non-API messages
    - getMessagesAfterCompactBoundary() returns only post-compaction messages for API calls
  3. After compaction, the API sees only:
    - The compact boundary marker
    - The summary message
    - Attachments (file refs, plan, skills)
    - Any new messages after compaction
  4. Three compaction types exist:
    - Full compaction — API summarizes all old messages
    - Session memory compaction — uses extracted session memory as summary (cheaper)
    - Microcompaction — clears old tool result content when cache is cold (>1h idle)

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

#560
post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What constitutes "fully AI-generated" when you're in an edit loop between an agent and a human?

I think that may not be answerable until a case concerning it has been heard and ruled on. A lawyer may have a better answer for you, but if I had to bet then I'd put $100 on it being something like 'it depends'.

It's interesting how AI can be its own worst enemy in this legal system. The very thing it's excellent at is not protected. In practice, there seems to be a strong opportunity to disintermediate brands by acting as a layer of abstraction above the seller and manufacturer. An AI instruction likely cares less about brand or sharing customer information with the seller; it's just more friction and tokens spent.
Post reply on HN