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

631–636 of 636 posts

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

#631

Post by kuschku »

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?

Do you check in binaries into your git history? If so, you should mark a commit as generated, and the commit message (plus repository state) should be enough to recreate it 1:1.

Similarly, if I use e.g. jextract or uniffi to generate Java interfaces from C code and check that in, I'll create tooling to automatically run those, and the commit will be attributed to that tooling.

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

#632

Post by feature20260213 »

otterley wrote: post #126
feature20260213 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because you can be sued for copyright violation if you don't know the origin of one, and not the other.

As an attorney, I know copyright law. (This is not legal advice.) There's nothing about copyright law that says you have to credit an AI coding agent for contributing to your work. The person receiving the code has to perform their due diligence in any case to determine whether the author owns it or has permission from the owner to contribute it.

Late reply, but I meant that the sources stolen by the big AI companies are copyrighted. So the output is tainted by that fact.

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

#633

Post by mynameisvlad »

riedel wrote: post #629
mynameisvlad wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you aren't a provider of AI services by using AI. There's a clear difference already called out between "provider" and "deployer". An AI user could barely be called a "deployer" as is, let alone a "provider". In other words, what AI service are you providing by creating a PR?

I would argue that the person reading an AI generated pull request is if there is no human oversight with an Ai. And are you sure that you get out of this definition (at least as a company): > provider’ means a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body that develops an AI system or a general-purpose AI model or that has an AI system or a general-purpose AI model developed and places it on the ma…

I would argue that an MR does none of those things.

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

#635

Post by rurban »

manbitesdog wrote: post #161
mzajc wrote: post #37

There are now several comments that (incorrectly?) interpret the undercover mode as only hiding internal information. Excerpts from the actual prompt[0]: NEVER include in commit messages or PR descriptions: - The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI - Co-Authored-By lines or any other attribution BAD (never write these): - 1-shotted by claude-opus-4-6 - Generated with Claude Code - Co-Authored-By: C…

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?

Torvalds promotes exactly that. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...

Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse

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

#636

Post by drzaiusx11 »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #620
drzaiusx11 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My (limited) understanding was that without formal registration you cannot file any infringement suits against any works protected by said copyright. Then what's the point of the copyright other than getting to use that fancy 'c' superscript?

I think you're wrong but I may be wrong too, so if you have a link that talks about this formal registration requirement it would be great.

While copyright exists automatically upon creation, the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the registration certificate must be granted before you can initiate a lawsuit.
Post reply on HN