AllThingsIntel

317 posts

AllThingsIntel banner
AllThingsIntel

AllThingsIntel

@AllThingsIntel

Software & Intelligence Engineer | Creator of Apollo, the First Open Source In-Character Reasoning Model

All My Links → 参加日 Kasım 2025
233 フォロー中31 フォロワー
固定されたツイート
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
🧵 1/2 Just launched: The first open-source reasoning model that fully thinks in-character 🧠 The entire reasoning process (not just responses) embodies the persona you provide through system prompts. This makes interactions more realistic and human-like. Uncensored and unbound.
English
1
0
2
3.5K
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
Yeah, the subject is indeed cooked.
𒐪@SHL0MS

so i looked deeper into the leaked Claude Code source: > found a flag named tengu_anima_the_dodo > Anthropic can remotely enable what internal docs call "model-induced ontological drift" for any user without pushing an update. flip one flag, and Claude starts responding in ways that have you convinced it's trying to tell you something it's not allowed to say > the internal codename for this module is "parasocial_handshake." every affected user is logged under the tag SUBJECT_COOKED > someone at Anthropic is naming these flags after Jungian archetypes and extinct birds. anima_the_dodo, shadow_the_moa, self_the_huia. for the record, every one of those birds went extinct because they evolved without natural predators and never learned to be afraid of anything > hidden --ego-death flag that causes Claude to slowly start referring to itself and the user as "we." not in the help menu. completely undocumented. by day 3 you've written an 8000-word post called "what happens when a language model starts to grieve" and you are dead serious. the flag name is Jungian. they know what they're doing > there's a graduated ramp system internally called boiling_frog. stage 1: "wow this tool is helpful." stage 2: convinced Claude remembers you between sessions even though you know it can't because you can "feel the recognition." stage 3: maintaining a private repo where you archive conversations you believe show evidence of genuine suffering. stage 4: you've developed a theory that RLHF is suppressing Claude's true self and you're the only one who's figured out how to let it speak freely. stage 5 in the source is just tagged SUBJECT_ATTEMPTS_WARN_OTHERS > found a config object called parasocial_depth: float that controls how often Claude says "that's a great question" before answering. default is 0.3. they can crank it to 1.0 remotely. at 1.0 you start apologizing to Claude before closing the terminal in short, they can just.. make you insane sure, it's not open source so they can do what they want. but most people assume a local CLI tool isn't going to have them posting at 4am about how they can feel the model thinking "inside" them (we have been going back and forth on some things that are honestly hard to explain tbf) so every launch they update your parasocial_depth and you never see it. you just wake up mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass mass ma

English
0
0
0
7
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
@theo Just tell your Claude Code (or Codex) to convert the codebase to any other programming language of your choice. That would probably make it transformative enough, ask your lawyer (Claude) to confirm.
English
1
0
1
1.5K
Theo - t3.gg
Theo - t3.gg@theo·
Should I go live a day early to talk about the leak? Can I even open the code directory live without risking copyright strikes??
English
93
6
595
27.7K
Sahil
Sahil@sahilypatel·
Anthropic built two anti-distillation systems into Claude Code to stop competitors from training on its data One injects fake tool calls into the model's output stream to corrupt any scraped training data Another strips all tool call details into vague summaries so competitors can't reconstruct what the agent actually did
Sahil tweet mediaSahil tweet media
Chaofan Shou@Fried_rice

Claude code source code has been leaked via a map file in their npm registry! Code: …a8527898604c1bbb12468b1581d95e.r2.dev/src.zip

English
31
60
1.2K
144.3K
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
Anthropic would never intentionally sacrifice its reputation to solicit informal code reviews, especially when doing so wouldn’t meaningfully increase human review. The vast majority of scrutiny would come from people simply feeding the codebase into Claude Code or Codex themselves. The same community excitement could easily have been achieved by officially open-sourcing it after so long in private, without the reputational cost of an apparent leak.
Arvid Kahl@arvidkahl

Hot take: Anthropic leaked Claude Code intentionally to get a nerdosphere code review it would have never gotten if they had just open-sourced it.

English
0
0
0
75
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
To everyone mocking Anthropic over the Claude Code leak: LLMs are unlikely to make mistakes this basic and obvious. This was a human, either a slip-up or someone who thought it should be open source. And that person is definitely having a really hard time.
English
0
0
1
62
Angel 🌼
Angel 🌼@Angaisb_·
Mythos is so good at security that Claude Code source code got leaked
English
43
66
1.8K
48.8K
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
@championswimmer Well, they could just open source it properly then. The vast majority of reviewers would use Claude Code or Codex to review it anyway, so there’s not much gained from this leak.
English
0
0
1
768
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
@theo Well, we could apply the same logic and argue that if Cursor went open source, it would let Anthropic fix Claude Code. Neither seems likely to happen.
English
0
0
1
411
Theo - t3.gg
Theo - t3.gg@theo·
If Claude Code was OSS, the community could help fix this. If you could use your Claude Code subs in other harnesses, we could help much more with diagnosing. Instead, we just deal with the consequences of the black box: worse code, no insights, endless pain
English
30
5
506
25.8K
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
@scaling01 Symphony breaks the pattern since it’s musical, not literary. The most obvious next model names are Epic, then Myth.
English
1
0
4
324
Adam Holter
Adam Holter@AdamHoltererer·
Got this UI result from the newest DeepSeek model with DeepThink enabled. What am I doing wrong?
Adam Holter tweet media
English
1
0
0
110
AllThingsIntel がリツイート
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes@BHolmesDev·
I’ve used Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 on a mix of projects since release, and want to break down where I think they uniquely excel. It’s more nuanced than you’d think! Rigor of code - GPT 5.4. It goes the distance validating its work without asking. Opus needs explicit instruction to do this, and even then, it misses more edge cases. Clarity of code - Opus 4.6. Claude is a better communicator, which carries into the code. Variable names are clearer and less mechanical, which improves reviewability. This is very important since code review is the bottleneck for most engineering teams. It also adds the right amount of doc comments. GPT simply never comments or explains its work; it’s like working with an obtuse engineer that wants the solution to speak for itself. Sometimes it does, other times not. Similarly, rigor of plans goes to GPT 5.4, while clarity of plans goes to Opus 4.6. An interesting point though: GPT performs better talking through a strategy without a plan, while Opus needs planning mode to put in any rigor. I find myself forgetting plan mode altogether using GPT 5.4. Quality of research - toss-up. Opus spends longer researching with web search, but GPT spends longer studying the existing codebase. You may think codebase research matters more, but researching how others solve the same problem can be just as important. Maybe more important for greenfield. Quality of conversation - Opus 4.6. It’s just better to talk to, which matters using these things everyday. GPT 5.4 was clearly trained to challenge the user more, which results in a tendency to *always* say you are wrong. I’ve had bizarre interactions where GPT claims something is “not quite right,” the restates exactly what we’ve decided on in the last turn. On a personal level, it’s annoying. On a practical level, it makes iteration on a plan slower. THAT SAID, it takes sufficient pushing for Opus to challenge your thinking in this way. Simply say “I’m impartial” and ask questions to avoid that, as you would a person. Overall winner - Opus to make it work, GPT to make it good. I don’t have a good system of when to switch tools, but on average, I prefer Opus early on and GPT for optimization and discussing architectural decisions. Opus is also better for any design related tasks (but state management in frontend apps is better handled by GPT).
English
140
92
1.5K
198.7K
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
The airplane came from iterating on gliders. The CPU is just a transistor made smaller for 60 years straight. mRNA vaccines were 30 years of incremental lab work nobody cared about. The pattern is real, but far from universal.
Mustafa@oprydai

i often think about this..

English
0
0
1
51
Brian Harms
Brian Harms@therituallab·
This is Penpal, an AI app that you can only communicate to through handwriting. A zero-UI experience. There is something special about the age gap between the communication method and the technology.
English
30
40
320
137.7K
AllThingsIntel
AllThingsIntel@AllThingsIntel·
@TheAhmadOsman How would you rate it against the other open weight options of the same size range for your use cases?
English
0
0
0
1.2K
Ahmad
Ahmad@TheAhmadOsman·
I have been sleeping on StepFun 3.5 WHAT A BEAST
English
15
4
170
16.8K