48 ms·
Undercover mode also pretends to be human, which I'm less ok with: https://github.com/chatgptprojects/claude-code/blob/642c7f944bbe5f7e57c05d756ab7fa7c9c5035cc
by BoppreH 7mo ago
Undercover mode also pretends to be human, which I'm less ok with:
https://github.com/chatgptprojects/claude-code/blob/642c7f944bbe5f7e57c05d756ab7fa7c9c5035cc/src/utils/undercover.ts#L52 https://github.com/chatgptprojects/claude-code/blob/642c7f94...
- vips7L 7mo agoThat whole “feature” is vile.
- silversmith 7mo agoHow so? Good bit of my global claude.md is dedicated to fighting the incessant attribution in git commits. It is on the same level as the "sent from my iphone" signature - I'm not okay with my commits being advertising board for anthropic.
- mrlnstk 7mo agoBut will this be released as a feature? For me it seems like it's an Anthropic internal tool to secretly contribute to public repositories to test new models etc.
- BoppreH 7mo agoI don't care who is using it, I don't want LLMs pretending to be humans in public repos. Anthropic just lost some points with me for this one. EDIT: I just realized this might be used without publishing the changes, for internal evaluation only as you mentioned. That would be a lot better.
- bhaak 7mo agoA benign use of this mode is developing on their own public repositories. https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code
- 0x3f 7mo agoYou'll never win this battle, so why waste feelings and energy on it? That's where the internet is headed. There's no magical human verification technology coming to save us.
- RockRobotRock 7mo ago>There's no magical human verification technology coming to save us. Except for the one Sam Altman is building.
- TrickyRick 7mo agoGiving your retina scan to one of the main Slop Bros, what could possibly go wrong?
- monsieurbanana 7mo agoThat one is magical for sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(illusion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(illusion)
- stackghost 7mo agoScam Altman is not trustworthy. I hope nobody gives him their biometrics. I certainly would never.
- matkoniecz 7mo agoEven if it is impossible to win, I am still feeling bad about it. And at this point it is more about how large space will be usable and how much will be bot-controlled wasteland. I prefer spaces important for me to survive.
- nslsm 7mo agoFeeling bad about something you can’t change is bad for your mental health.
- primevaldad 7mo ago
- shaky-carrousel 7mo ago> Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does. The undercover mode prompt was generated using AI.
- kingstnap 7mo agoAll these companies use AIs for writing these prompts. But AI aren't actually very good at writing prompts imo. Like they are superficially good in that they seem to produce lots of vaguely accurate and specific text. And you would hope the specificity would mean it's good. But they sort of don't capture intent very well. Nor do they seem to understand the failure modes of AI. The "-- describe only what the code change does" is a good example. This is specifc but it also distinctly seems like someone who doesn't actually understand what makes AI writing obvious. If you compare that vs human written prose about what makes AI writing feel AI you would see the difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing The above actually feels like text from someone who has read and understands what makes AI writing AI.
- briHass 7mo agoHey LLM, write me a system prompt that will avoid the common AI 'tells' or other idiosyncrasies that make it obvious that text or code output was generated by an AI/LLM. Use the referenced Wikipedia article as a must-avoid list, but do not consider it exhaustive. Add any derivations or modifications to these rules to catch 'likely' signals as well. There, sorted!
- mickdarling 7mo agoHey, LLM, take a look at these multiple hundred emails and docs in my docs folder from the last few years, before I started using AI, that I wrote personally. create a list of all of the idiosyncrasies that I have in my writing. Create a file to remember that. And then use that to write any new text that'll be published so it sounds like my authentic voice. Thank you.
- 7mo ago
- sandos 7mo agoThis is my pet peeve with LLMs, they almost always fails to write like a normal human would. Mentioning logs, or other meta-things which is not at all interesting.
- lazysheepherd 7mo ago1) This seems to be for strictly Antrophic interal tooling 2) It does not "pretend to be human" it is instructed to "Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does." Since when "describe only what the code change does" is pretending to be human? You guys are just mining for things to moan about at this point.
- BoppreH 7mo ago1) It's not clear to me that this is only for internal tooling, as opposed to publishing commits on public GitHub repos. 2) Yes, it does explicitly say to pretend to be a human. From the link on my post: > NEVER include in commit messages or PR descriptions: > [...] > - The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI
- LelouBil 7mo agoTime to ask if the contributor know what a Capybara is as a new Turing test
- skeledrew 7mo agoHeh, this is what people who are hostile against AI-generated contributions get. I always figured it'd happen soon enough, and here it is in the wild. Who knows where else it's happening...
- jen20 7mo agoAlso unintentionally reveals something: > Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does. That's not what a commit message is for, that's what the diff is for. The commit message should explain WHY. Sadly not doing that likely does indeed make it appear more human...
- embedding-shape 7mo agoYeah, that was my reaction too. A shame they try to hide themselves, but even worse, the instructions to this "Fake Human" is wrong too!
- nightpool 7mo agoYes, this is a trend I've noticed strongly with Claude code—it really struggles to explain why. Especially in PR descriptions, it has a strong bias to just summarize the commits and not explain at all why the PR exists.
- joquarky 7mo agoThe question "why" is always answered with post-hoc rationalizations. This applies to both LLMs and humans.
- nightpool 7mo agoNo, I think a lot of humans can explain why they're adding a new button to the checkout page, or why they're removing a line from the revenue reconciliation job. There's always a reason a change gets made, or else nobody would be working on it at all :)
- joquarky 6mo agoTry meditating until you discover the source of internal dialogue.
- hombre_fatal 7mo ago
- erisnet 7mo agoThe first two zips I download today were 9.887.340 bytes, why is yours 10.222.630 bytes?
- morissette 7mo agoI pretend to be human most days. I call it the daily facade of who I want to be on a given day. Oh humanity.
- jacquesm 7mo agoI am Jacques' complete lack of surprise.
- neilv 7mo agoThat's gonna need an explanation. From the ethics/safety/alignment people.
- dang 7mo ago(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47584683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47584683.)
- anabis 7mo agoYeah, I thought Anthropic was for AI safety. Telling Ai to not be honest is a bad sign.