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

561–570 of 636 posts

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

#561

Post by VectorVault »

spoiler wrote: post #506
vrosas wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also pretty damn obvious when LLMs write code. Nobody out here commenting every method in perfect punctuation and grammar.

I have been doing this for years, especially for libraries (internal or otherwise), anything that's `pub`/`export`, or gnarly logic that makes the intent not obvious. Not _everything_ is documented, but most things are. I'm doing it because I know how much I appreciate well-written documentation. Also this is a bit niche, but if you're using Rust and add examples to doc-comments, they get run as tests too. Also given…

Strict grammar school teachers, who enforced a "Form And Style" level of prose, have become a liability in the AI world!

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

#562

Post by VectorVault »

hnbad wrote: post #556
Pxtl wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmm... It's an interesting question: at what point, in a conversation, document, image, story, does human authorship end and AI authorship begin? How would you know? Is it a tell tale or is it advertising?

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

#563

Post by VectorVault »

tdb7893 wrote: post #363
thechao wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assemble all your machine code using a magnetized needle?

I am not against the general use of AI code. Quite simply, my view is that all relevant context for a review should be disclosed in the PR. AI and humans are not the same as authors of PRs. As an obvious example: one of the important functions of the PR process is to teach the writer about how to code in this project but LLMs fundamentally don't learn the same way as humans so there's a meaningful difference in conte…

What's really tricky with the legal protections area is this: 90% of the value of the S&P 500 is intangible. Meaning if you suck out the book value (10%), the rest is brand, IP, rights, sources & methods, etc. So if a company can't protect that, it's not particularly valuable anymore. Maybe we will see a shift back to tangible assets and book value (25,000 $8MM Vera Rubin machines) and away from intangibles...

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

#564

Post by VectorVault »

mikkupikku wrote: post #184
manbitesdog wrote: post #161

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?

A whole lot of people find LLM code to be strictly objectionable, for a variety of reasons. We can debate the validity of those reasons, but I think that even if those reasons were all invalid, it would still be unethical to deceive people by a deliberate lie of omission. I don't turn it off, and I don't think other people should either.

Can you see a world where everyone has an AI Persona based on their prior work that acts like a RAG to inform how things should be coded? Meaning this is patent qualified code because, despite being AI configured, it is based on my history of coding?

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

#569

Post by rkozik1989 »

DrewADesign wrote: post #510
tmountain wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised Python is on that list. TypeScript doesn't seem like a terrible choice, as it can leverage vast ecosystems of packages, has concurrency features, a solid type system, and decent performance. C++ lacks as robust of a package ecosystem, and Python doesn't have inbuilt types, which makes it a non-starter for larger projects for me. Rust would have been a great choice for sure.

Python and C++ have been used for countless large projects— each one for many more than typescript. It’s all about trade-offs that take into account your tasks, available coders at the project’s commencement, environment, etc.

People like to put companies that are household names on pedestals, but the choices they make are mostly guided by what their people can do and which choices give them the most value for free. They mostly operate how smaller companies do but they have a bigger R&D budget to address issues like scale that the larger market has little incentive to solve.

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

#570

Post by Pxtl »

bandrami wrote: post #279
Pxtl wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the code should explain itself. This is a good goal. You should strive to make the code explain itself. To write code that does not need comments. You will fail to reach that goal most of the time. And when you fail to reach that goal, write the dang comments explaining why the code is the way that it is.

But you will also fail to keep the comments and code synchronized, and the comment will at some point no longer describe why the code is doing whatever it does

Which is why you're reviewing changes. I haven't memorized what every line of code does, if it was worth commenting then it was confusing-enough that it needed the comment and so I'll read the comment to make sense of the code being changed. If I don't read the comment that means the comment was too far from the confusing code.

Alternately, you can say the same about informative variable names or informative function names. "If I change the function then the name is no longer accurate". You don't say that because function names and variable names are short and clear and are close to the problem at hand. Do the same with comments.

Which is why the copilot hyper-verbosity is harmful. Comments need to be terse so your eyes don't filter them out as noise.

Post reply on HN