4 ms·

Undercover mode is the most concerning part here tbh.

by OfirMarom 6mo ago

anonymoushn 6mo ago
why
- AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
  Well, as a general rule, I don't do business with people who lie to me. You've got a business, and you sent me junk mail, but you made it look like some official government thing to get me to open it? I'm done, just because you lied on the envelope. I don't care how badly I need your service. There's a dozen other places that can provide it; I'll pick one of them rather than you, because you've shown yourself to be dishonest right out of the gate. Same thing with an AI (or a business that creates an AI). You're willing to lie about who you are (or have your tool do so)? What else are you willing to lie to me about? I don't have time in my life for that. I'm out right here.
  - simianwords 6mo ago
    What’s the lie? It’s just asking to not reveal internal names
    - BoredPositron 6mo ago
      You are spamming the whole fucking thread with the same nonsense. It is instructed to hide that the PR was made via Claude Code. I don't know why people who are so AI forward like yourself have such a problem with telling people that they use AI for coding/writing, it's a weirdly insecure look.
      - simianwords 6mo ago
        I can do that right now with Claude Code without this undercover mode.. In fact I do it many times at work. What's the big deal in this? Do you not think it is an overreaction to panic like this if I can do exactly what the undercover mode does by simply asking Claude?
        BoredPositron 6mo ago
        It's different if it's an institutional decision or a personal like in your case. Which is and I am repeating myself here borderline insecure.
        simianwords 6mo ago
        what's insecure about it? if it is up to the institution to make that decision - you can still do it. Claude is not stopping you from making that decision
        BoredPositron 6mo ago
        You have to work on your reading comprehension or you are intentional deceptive. Bye.
        simianwords 6mo ago
        ?? why doesn't your panic apply to other agents like Codex that don't advertise that the commit was made by an AI by default? strange!
        BoredPositron 6mo ago
        Because this thread is about claude. Are you that challenged?
  - otterley 6mo ago
    Out of curiosity, given two code submissions that are completely identical—one written solely by a human and one assisted by AI—why should its provenance make any difference to you? Is it like fine art, where it’s important that Picasso’s hand drew it? Or is it like an instruction manual, where the author is unimportant? Similarly, would you consider it to be dishonest if my human colleague reviewed and made changes to my code, but I didn’t explicitly credit them?
    - feature20260213 6mo ago
      Yes because you can be sued for copyright violation if you don't know the origin of one, and not the other.
      - otterley 6mo ago
        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.
        hajile 6mo ago
        Can you back this up with legal precedence? To my knowledge, nothing of the sort has been ruled by the courts. Additionally, this raises another big issue. A few years ago, a couple guys used software (what you could argue was a primitive AI) to generated around 70 billion unique pieces of music which amounts to essentially every piece of copyrightable music using standard music scales. Is the fact that they used software to develop this copyrighted material relevant? If not, then their copyright should certainly be legal and every new song should pay them royalties. It seems that using a computer to generate results MUST be added as an additional bit of analysis when it comes to infringement cases and fair use if not a more fundamental acknowledgement that computer-generated content falls under a different category (I'd imagine the real argument would be over how much of the input was human vs how much was the system). Of course, this all sets aside the training of AI using copyrighted works. As it turns out, AI can regurgitate verbatim large sections of copyrighted works (up to 80% according to this study[0]) showing that they are in point of fact outright infringing on those copyrights. Do we blow up current AI to maintain the illusion of copyright or blow up current copyright law to preserve AI? [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20957 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20957

Undercover mode is the most concerning part here tbh.

anonymoushn 6mo ago

why

AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
Well, as a general rule, I don't do business with people who lie to me. You've got a business, and you sent me junk mail, but you made it look like some official government thing to get me to open it? I'm done, just because you lied on the envelope. I don't care how badly I need your service. There's a dozen other places that can provide it; I'll pick one of them rather than you, because you've shown yourself to be dishonest right out of the gate. Same thing with an AI (or a business that creates an AI). You're willing to lie about who you are (or have your tool do so)? What else are you willing to lie to me about? I don't have time in my life for that. I'm out right here.
- simianwords 6mo ago
  What’s the lie? It’s just asking to not reveal internal names
  - BoredPositron 6mo ago
    You are spamming the whole fucking thread with the same nonsense. It is instructed to hide that the PR was made via Claude Code. I don't know why people who are so AI forward like yourself have such a problem with telling people that they use AI for coding/writing, it's a weirdly insecure look.
    - simianwords 6mo ago
      I can do that right now with Claude Code without this undercover mode.. In fact I do it many times at work. What's the big deal in this? Do you not think it is an overreaction to panic like this if I can do exactly what the undercover mode does by simply asking Claude?
      - BoredPositron 6mo ago
        It's different if it's an institutional decision or a personal like in your case. Which is and I am repeating myself here borderline insecure.
        simianwords 6mo ago
        what's insecure about it? if it is up to the institution to make that decision - you can still do it. Claude is not stopping you from making that decision
        BoredPositron 6mo ago
        You have to work on your reading comprehension or you are intentional deceptive. Bye.
        simianwords 6mo ago
        ?? why doesn't your panic apply to other agents like Codex that don't advertise that the commit was made by an AI by default? strange!
        BoredPositron 6mo ago
        Because this thread is about claude. Are you that challenged?
- otterley 6mo ago
  Out of curiosity, given two code submissions that are completely identical—one written solely by a human and one assisted by AI—why should its provenance make any difference to you? Is it like fine art, where it’s important that Picasso’s hand drew it? Or is it like an instruction manual, where the author is unimportant? Similarly, would you consider it to be dishonest if my human colleague reviewed and made changes to my code, but I didn’t explicitly credit them?
  - feature20260213 6mo ago
    Yes because you can be sued for copyright violation if you don't know the origin of one, and not the other.
    - otterley 6mo ago
      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.
      - hajile 6mo ago
        Can you back this up with legal precedence? To my knowledge, nothing of the sort has been ruled by the courts. Additionally, this raises another big issue. A few years ago, a couple guys used software (what you could argue was a primitive AI) to generated around 70 billion unique pieces of music which amounts to essentially every piece of copyrightable music using standard music scales. Is the fact that they used software to develop this copyrighted material relevant? If not, then their copyright should certainly be legal and every new song should pay them royalties. It seems that using a computer to generate results MUST be added as an additional bit of analysis when it comes to infringement cases and fair use if not a more fundamental acknowledgement that computer-generated content falls under a different category (I'd imagine the real argument would be over how much of the input was human vs how much was the system). Of course, this all sets aside the training of AI using copyrighted works. As it turns out, AI can regurgitate verbatim large sections of copyrighted works (up to 80% according to this study[0]) showing that they are in point of fact outright infringing on those copyrights. Do we blow up current AI to maintain the illusion of copyright or blow up current copyright law to preserve AI? [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20957 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20957