This is bad.
-
@MissingClara I agree it's a hard problem, but it's one that is quickly eroding norms and trust in open source, and I think it's worth taking a firm stance on that?
Even if people lie and ignore that stance, that still sets a community value and prevents casual usage, plus gives a clear path towards banning those contributors who lie about their own usage?
@xgranade I agree, but it's not up to me 🫤
-
This is bad. This is very, very bad.
I'm not trying to pick on Python here, I pick it because Python is something I'm actively using, and so I have a vested interest in the project *not* being AI-vulnerable.
But it's not good, chat. It's very far from good, in fact.
@xgranade I also saw this on Neovim and Wezterm, both of which I really love. On those projects, it seems to be extremely minor stuff, but it's still extremely depressing.
I was just getting into Python lately too! I started with JavaScript, and then went right to C++/C/Rust since I wanted to do realtime DSP. There's a Python library called Abjad for manipulating Lilypond musical notation that's really cool to play with, but this puts a bit of a damper on that excitement.
-
@xgranade I agree, but it's not up to me 🫤
@MissingClara No, that's completely fair, and it's why I'm not out to pick on Python in particular here (wrote a follow up to try and make that very clear, sorry if I wasn't clear from the get-go). This is a problem across OSS in general, and doesn't have easy solutions... I just also don't want to give up because it's difficult? But I recognize that it's a messy problem for something as large as Python, especially.
-
@xgranade I also saw this on Neovim and Wezterm, both of which I really love. On those projects, it seems to be extremely minor stuff, but it's still extremely depressing.
I was just getting into Python lately too! I started with JavaScript, and then went right to C++/C/Rust since I wanted to do realtime DSP. There's a Python library called Abjad for manipulating Lilypond musical notation that's really cool to play with, but this puts a bit of a damper on that excitement.
@reillypascal To be fair, the number of commits on CPython itself seems to be rather limited at this point. But it's more that I don't see the opposition needed to contain the problem to those commits. As I said in another thread, I see this more as a very bad leading indicator rather than immediately catastrophic.
-
@ireneista @glyph I hope it doesn't, if only because I want to be focusing on my specfic and screenplays, but if it does come to that, I very very much so appreciate your support.
-
This is bad. This is very, very bad.
I'm not trying to pick on Python here, I pick it because Python is something I'm actively using, and so I have a vested interest in the project *not* being AI-vulnerable.
But it's not good, chat. It's very far from good, in fact.
@xgranade ugh ugh UGH
-
This is bad. This is very, very bad.
I'm not trying to pick on Python here, I pick it because Python is something I'm actively using, and so I have a vested interest in the project *not* being AI-vulnerable.
But it's not good, chat. It's very far from good, in fact.
@xgranade
Looks like about a dozen commits reference Claude in the commit message or authorship. Note to others: you have to do a bit more work than just "grep -i claude", as there are humans that are named Claude too. But the Anthropic Claude is definitely in there, which raises some legal questions about copyright I think. -
@xgranade
Looks like about a dozen commits reference Claude in the commit message or authorship. Note to others: you have to do a bit more work than just "grep -i claude", as there are humans that are named Claude too. But the Anthropic Claude is definitely in there, which raises some legal questions about copyright I think.@joelle Yeah, at least one list of commits that I saw also grepped for anthropic.com, but that's a very good point.
Anyway, with respect to it being about a dozen, yes, this is fairly limited in its impact so far, but what worries me is that Python itself is in the blast radius of Anthropic's efforts to enclose OSS at *all*, and with seemingly no processes in place to limit that exposure.
It's part of why I've taken to referring to this kind of problem as "AI-vulnerable."
-
As an addendum, I'm using Python as an example here because it's near and dear to my heart. This is not "Python in particular is exceptionally bad," this is "a very bad thing has been happening in OSS *in general* and Python is now in that blast radius, which makes it harder for me to personally ignore."
As a second addendum, since this has come up in several reply threads, the number of commits is limited so far, and doesn't date back past December 5, 2025 so far as I'm aware of.
The Python-specific part of that broader problem is, at least to my mind, that there's not a mechanism that I see for limiting that exposure to those commits, to preventing further and more expansive commits in the future.
-
@xgranade @ireneista Huh, maybe even https://brython.info/ ?
I thought that project had fizzled out, but no, it supports 3.14
@xgranade @ireneista Well, MicroPython has an advantage in that it's still written in C, and it is therefore possible to port C extension modules to it, though there aren't that many which really support it yet
-
This is bad. This is very, very bad.
I'm not trying to pick on Python here, I pick it because Python is something I'm actively using, and so I have a vested interest in the project *not* being AI-vulnerable.
But it's not good, chat. It's very far from good, in fact.
@xgranade
Huh, back to perl then I guess?
-
@SnoopJ @theorangetheme No, absolutely. I see this as the leading indicator rather than the damage itself, if that makes sense?
I keep using the term "AI-vulnerable" to try and point to that there isn't necessarily an actual direct impact, so much as a dramatically increased vulnerability surface area.
@xgranade @SnoopJ @theorangetheme I'm curious--how is Claude directly able to do commits? Why is it not "Claude on behalf of Dave Alvarado"? I understand somebody ran an agent against the code base, but someBODY ran the agent against the code base. Somebody prompted it saying "go find security vulnerabilities in Python".
It sure would be nice to know who, not just "Claude".
-
@ireneista @glyph I hope it doesn't, if only because I want to be focusing on my specfic and screenplays, but if it does come to that, I very very much so appreciate your support.
@xgranade @ireneista @glyph *quickly scribbles out a short story involving a fantastical run for the PSF*
-
@xgranade @SnoopJ @theorangetheme I'm curious--how is Claude directly able to do commits? Why is it not "Claude on behalf of Dave Alvarado"? I understand somebody ran an agent against the code base, but someBODY ran the agent against the code base. Somebody prompted it saying "go find security vulnerabilities in Python".
It sure would be nice to know who, not just "Claude".
@dave @xgranade @theorangetheme I'm not sure I really understand the question. In the commits above, it's a co-author rather than a primary author.
But in the general case, it's able to do it by running the command that adds a commit, in a context where the configured name/email for use with `git` will be the name/email associated with the model (the author metadata includes the specific model as well)
Creating such commits without indication of the human involvement (wherever it originated, since Rube Goldberg contraptions are all the rage right now) is IMO unethical but far from unimaginable.
-
@xgranade
Huh, back to perl then I guess?@srtcd424 If that's what's useful to you? But I don't personally recommend moving away from Python, nor do I think that's an effective tactic for dealing with the problem.
As mentioned, this is a broad problem in OSS *in general*, and Python is now in the blast radius of that problem. Trying to create a dependency path that doesn't include any AI-vulnerable code is very difficult right now.
-
@dave @xgranade @theorangetheme I'm not sure I really understand the question. In the commits above, it's a co-author rather than a primary author.
But in the general case, it's able to do it by running the command that adds a commit, in a context where the configured name/email for use with `git` will be the name/email associated with the model (the author metadata includes the specific model as well)
Creating such commits without indication of the human involvement (wherever it originated, since Rube Goldberg contraptions are all the rage right now) is IMO unethical but far from unimaginable.
@SnoopJ @xgranade @theorangetheme gotcha. On second look, I see that you were grepping, I misunderstood what I was reading there.
As I've thought about it some more, I think I'm standing by my take. IMO the fact that you contributed with Claude is barely more interesting than the fact that you contributed with VS Code. I think that "oh I used an LLM/Agent" is not a defense against, well, anything.
-
@SnoopJ @xgranade @theorangetheme gotcha. On second look, I see that you were grepping, I misunderstood what I was reading there.
As I've thought about it some more, I think I'm standing by my take. IMO the fact that you contributed with Claude is barely more interesting than the fact that you contributed with VS Code. I think that "oh I used an LLM/Agent" is not a defense against, well, anything.
@SnoopJ @xgranade @theorangetheme I don't think we should be personifying LLMs by calling them "co-authors". Claude didn't author, it recursively autocompleted.
-
@SnoopJ @xgranade @theorangetheme gotcha. On second look, I see that you were grepping, I misunderstood what I was reading there.
As I've thought about it some more, I think I'm standing by my take. IMO the fact that you contributed with Claude is barely more interesting than the fact that you contributed with VS Code. I think that "oh I used an LLM/Agent" is not a defense against, well, anything.
@dave @SnoopJ @theorangetheme It's not interesting, but it is important as part of understanding the vulnerability surface introduced by that code. There are many things about code that are simultaneously boring as fuck and also critically important.
-
@SnoopJ @xgranade @theorangetheme I don't think we should be personifying LLMs by calling them "co-authors". Claude didn't author, it recursively autocompleted.
@dave @SnoopJ @theorangetheme I don't even disagree, but that's the signal that Claude gives us, and there's no Git metadata for "this code was extruded by $x slop machine."
-
@xgranade oh, it looks like the warning is complicated?
https://github.com/python/cpython/commits?author=claude shows no commits
so idk what exactly the warning is saying
@astraluma @xgranade If you search for 'claude' you can find the commits where Claude is a "co-author" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Apython%2Fcpython+claude&type=commits
