Or is there an open source front-end and a closed backend?
No, its not even source available,.
> Or is there an open source front-end and a closed backend?
No, its all proprietary. None of it is open source.
So glad I took the time to firejail this thing before running it.
Just point your agent at this codebase and ask it to find things and you'll find a whole treasure trove of info.
Edit: some other interesting unreleased/hidden features
- The Buddy System: Tamagotchi-style companion creature system with ASCII art sprites
- Undercover mode: Strips ALL Anthropic internal info from commits/PRs for employees on open source contributions
Buddy system is this year's April Fool's joke, you roll your own gacha pet that you get to keep. There are legendary pulls.
They expect it to go viral on Twitter so they are staggering the reveals.
It's extremely nested, it's basically an if statement soup
`useTypeahead.tsx` is even worse, extremely nested, a ton of "if else" statements, I doubt you'd look at it and think this is sane code
But if you take a look at the other file, for example `useTypeahead` you'd see, even if there are a few code-gen / source-map artifacts, you still see the core logic, and behavior, is just a big bowl of soup
export function extractSearchToken(completionToken: {
token: string;
isQuoted?: boolean;
}): string {
if (completionToken.isQuoted) {
// Remove @" prefix and optional closing "
return completionToken.token.slice(2).replace(/"$/, '');
} else if (completionToken.token.startsWith('@')) {
return completionToken.token.substring(1);
} else {
return completionToken.token;
}
}
1. Randomly peeking at process.argv and process.env all around. Other weird layering violations, too.
2. Tons of repeat code, eg. multiple ad-hoc implementations of hash functions / PRNGs.
3. Almost no high-level comments about structure - I assume all that lives in some CLAUDE.md instead.Such state should be strongly typed and explicitly passed to the functions that need it, eg. as function arguments or members of an associated instance. This makes it easier to reason about the code (the caller will know that some module changes its functionality based on some state variable), it makes it easier to test (both from the mechanical point of view of having to set environment variables which is gnarly, and from the point of view of once more knowing that the code changes its behaviour based on some state/option and both cases should probably be tested).
Reverse-engineering through tests have never been easier, which could collapse the complexity and clean the code.
'It works' is a low bar. If that's the bar you set you are one bad incident away from finding out who stayed for the product and who stayed because switching felt annoying.
Also “one bad incident away” never works in practice. The last two decades have shown how people will use the tools that get the job done no matter what kinda privacy leaks, destructive things they have done to the user.
But what do I know. Code has been solved.
Copilot on OAI reveals everything meaningful about its functionality if you use a custom model config via the API. All you need to do is inspect the logs to see the prompts they're using. So far no one seems to care about this "loophole". Presumably, because the only thing that matters is for you to consume as many tokens per unit time as possible.
The source code of the slot machine is not relevant to the casino manager. He only cares that the customer is using it.
Now do you want the list of the people it would be relevant to?
People playing the game, criminals, auditors that could shut the casino down and/or fine them.
Much bigger pool of people.
Not exactly this, but close.
I hope it's a common knowledge that _any_ client side JavaScript is exposed to everyone. Perhaps minimized, but still easily reverse-engineerable.
I jest, but in a world where these models have been trained on gigatons of open source I don't even see the moral problem. IANAL, don't actually do this.
So not even close to Opus, then?
These are a year behind, if not more. And they're probably clunky to use.
There were/are a lot of discussions on how the harness can affect the output.
this one has more stars and more popular
Why weren't proper checks in place in the first place?
Bonus: why didn't they setup their own AI-assisted tools to harness the release checks?
Original llama models leaked from meta. Instead of fighting it they decided to publish them officially. Real boost to the OS/OW models movement, they have been leading it for a while after that.
It would be interesting to see that same thing with CC, but I doubt it'll ever happen.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Programming-TypeScript-Making-JavaScr...
But a lot of desktop tools are written in JS because it's easy to create multi-platform applications.
Surely there's nothing here of value compared to the weights except for UX and orchestration?
Couldn't this have just been decompiled anyhow?
I guess these words are to be avoided...
mapcars•1h ago
swimmingbrain•1h ago