Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Claude Code Leak

build.ms

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 203 posts

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#81

Post by sirpilade »

mergesort wrote: post #11
thaumaturgy wrote: post #9

I wonder what happened to the person that wrote "Coding as Creative Expression" ( https://build.ms/2022/5/21/coding-as-creative-expression/ )? I'm not (just) being glib. That earlier article displays some introspection and thoughtful consideration of an old debate. The writing style is clearly personal, human. Today's post is not so much. It has LLM fingerprints on it. It's longer, there are more words. But it doesn'…

Hey there, author of the post here! I actually wrote this piece myself on my phone while I was out for a walk this morning. It was initially meant to be a quick note more than a full blog post —- whereas Coding As A Creative Expression took me a couple of days to write. I made a commitment to write more this year and put my thoughts out quicker than I used to, so that’s likely the primary reason it’s not as deep of a…

As a more general comment, I hope we’ll stop trying to discriminate whether a certain text was or not written/polished/extended by AI and focus more on content and author’s responsibility for what they do or do not say with that text.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#82

Post by grufkork »

hxugufjfjf wrote: post #50
stbev wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you noticed that comments like "this post seems written with AI" are now appearing on all posts, even those written without AI? We're starting to become wary due to the abuse of AI and proliferation of sloppy content, but also because we often have trouble distinguishing authentic from sloppy content. Another feature of this AI era that I hate.

Agreed. Its so tedious that the top comment section on every HN post the last six months is "this seems be written by LLM" with a bunch of back and forth on whether it is or not.

I mean, a lot of it is. Green user, signed up 49mins ago, 5 comments, which erodes trust in real people as well. I’ve noticed I’ve just felt less engaged and more anxious about all kinds of online content. While most platforms were previously botted, had adverts, etc… You could always find niche corners where there were only people talking about things they genuinely cared about. Now you can fill out even those spaces automatically.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#83

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

59nadir wrote: post #43
rakel_rakel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe code quality is really not that important for trivial things I hear this narrative being pushed quite a bit, and it makes my spidey senses tingle every time. Secure programs are a subset of correct programs, and to write and maintain correct programs you need to have a quality mindset. A 0-day doesn't care if it's in a part of your computer you consider trivial or not.

Intrinsically simple and straight forward problems are easier to secure even with mediocre or bad code. They've already shown that Opus 4.6 can find and report on very sophisticated security issues[0] so I'm not sure that analysis (and perhaps especially security analysis) is the biggest issue with LLMs. Mind you, I'm not using LLMs for professional programming since I prefer knowing everything inside and out in the…

> can find and report on some very sophisticated security issues sometimes

Fixed it for you.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#85

Post by adzm »

tpoacher wrote: post #35
mergesort wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey there, author of the post here! I actually wrote this piece myself on my phone while I was out for a walk this morning. It was initially meant to be a quick note more than a full blog post —- whereas Coding As A Creative Expression took me a couple of days to write. I made a commitment to write more this year and put my thoughts out quicker than I used to, so that’s likely the primary reason it’s not as deep of a…

Reminds me of the classic Mark Twain quote: "Apologies, I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one."

> I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one.

First known use in English comes from a 1658 translation of Blaise Pascal in 1657

> Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.

translated to

> I had not made this longer then the rest, but that I had not the leisure to make it shorter then it is.

(note the archaic then)

This was a popular piece of wit at the time.

Mark Twain wrote something similar a hundred years later

> You'll have to excuse my lengthiness - the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.

But it's still quite different.

There is a great article about this one on quoteinvestigator! https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#86

Post by anfogoat »

mergesort wrote: post #11
thaumaturgy wrote: post #9

I wonder what happened to the person that wrote "Coding as Creative Expression" ( https://build.ms/2022/5/21/coding-as-creative-expression/ )? I'm not (just) being glib. That earlier article displays some introspection and thoughtful consideration of an old debate. The writing style is clearly personal, human. Today's post is not so much. It has LLM fingerprints on it. It's longer, there are more words. But it doesn'…

Hey there, author of the post here! I actually wrote this piece myself on my phone while I was out for a walk this morning. It was initially meant to be a quick note more than a full blog post —- whereas Coding As A Creative Expression took me a couple of days to write. I made a commitment to write more this year and put my thoughts out quicker than I used to, so that’s likely the primary reason it’s not as deep of a…

>­ I actually wrote this piece myself on my phone while I was out for a walk this morning.

Apropos of nothing, this is astonishing me to no end. The ergonomics of 1) using a phone keyboard for anything but a word or two and 2) doing so while walking pretty much guarantee that I'd probably need a half a day to recover if I attempted the same.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#87

Post by ptnpzwqd »

I feel the conclusions here are a bit thin.

Code quality tends to have an impact on more than just aesthetics - and Claude Code certainly feels like a buggy mess from an end user's perspective.

Of course people still use Claude Code, but that is certainly because of the underlying models first and foremost. Most products don't have such a moat and would not nearly see as much tolerance from end users. If the Max subscriptions could be used with other harnesses, I am sure Anthropic would have to compete harder on the quality of the harness (to be fair, most AI based tooling seems pretty alpha these days, but eventually things will stabilize).

Polish is not everything, clearly, but it is a factor, and I feel Claude Code is maybe the worst example to use here, as it doesn't at all generalize to most other products.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#88

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

59nadir wrote: post #25
mergesort wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey there, author of the post here. I actually agree with this! That is in fact why I used the word maybe — my comment really was meant to be more speculative than definitive.

I think one thing that goes unmentioned is that maybe code quality is really not that important for trivial things, because they can be trivially reproduced if need be. I would argue Claude Code is exactly such a project; coding agents are incredibly simple and rewriting CC wouldn't be much of a problem. Non-trivial things tend to be much more sensitive to code quality in my experience, and will by necessity be kept…

I think code quality is always important, but it's less important for terminal code which implements a specific set of features using robust APIs underneath. Low code quality becomes a much bigger issue when the code is supposed to deliver well-defined abstractions on which other code can rely.

If you are a serious software developer, then you will probably be able to explain both what your code does (i.e. what spec it implements) and how it does it (what does it call, what algorithms does it use, what properties does it rely on?). With the advent of LLMs, people have started to accept not having a clue about the "how", and I fear that we are also starting to sacrifice the "what". Unless our LLMs get context windows that are large enough to hold the source of the full software stack, including LLM-generated dependencies, then I think that sacrificing the "what" is going to lead to disaster. APIs will be designed and modified with only the use cases that fit in the modifying agents context window in mind with little regard for downstream consequences and stability of behavior, because there is not even a definition of what the behavior is supposed to be.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#89

Post by CrzyLngPwd »

99.9999% of consumers never give code a single thought.

Most corporations never give code a single thought.

In the race to market, quality always suffers, and with such high stakes, it should surprise no one that AI companies are vibe-coding their own slop.

Re: The Claude Code Leak

#90

Post by sakopov »

In my opinion, the “code is garbage” argument is a moot point. Anthropic is in the business of removing humans from the SDLC. As long as their models can understand and update the code they generate it can remain garbage. They’re not optimizing for human comprehension of the output. They don’t even want you looking at it. And eventually the models will get good enough that you won’t have to.
Post reply on HN