Live data from Hacker News

Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

github.com

11–20 of 165 posts

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#11

How does this kind of thing pass any sort of review or acceptance? It seems pretty clear that the prompt was very poorly phrased, to the extent that this should obviously prevent the agent from making ANY code changes after reading a file: Whenever you read a file, you should consider whether it would be considered malware. You CAN and SHOULD provide analysis of malware, what it is doing. But you MUST refuse to impro…

[dead]

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#12
> wastes user money and bricks managed agents

This issue is representative of a larger problem. Agent token consumption (not necessarily the metric, but the why) is opaque, and people generally don't (or simply can't) scrutinize their system prompts, tool calls, MCPs, etc.

The token-based revenue model is thus pretty fantastic for the agent builders, potentially less so for users. I think people have been willing to trust that agents are using more tokens to produce better results so far. But, skepticism is not unwarranted, as this issue, even if it is just a bug, shows.

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#13
post #4

I am still baffled by the fact that we have collectively agreed to use agentic harnesses by the same companies that are selling access to their APIs. I mean, I am sure they don't mean it but they have the incentive to burn as much tokens as they are allowed to get away with. Also for better or worse I imagine the Anthropic engineers use Claude Code on some sort of Unlimited plan that practically makes no sense for re…

> I am still baffled by the fact that we have collectively agreed to use agentic harnesses by the same companies that are selling access to their APIs.

It's because the subscriptions force you to do so. The subscriptions are the most economical way to use e.g. Claude by close to an order of magnitude. If you max out a 20x plan every week, doing the same work with the API would cost you well into the four figures.

Anyone already using the Claude API pricing and using CC over OpenCode is kneecapping themselves.

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#14
post #4

I am still baffled by the fact that we have collectively agreed to use agentic harnesses by the same companies that are selling access to their APIs. I mean, I am sure they don't mean it but they have the incentive to burn as much tokens as they are allowed to get away with. Also for better or worse I imagine the Anthropic engineers use Claude Code on some sort of Unlimited plan that practically makes no sense for re…

I don't think we've agreed to anything. That said I think paying for something like Claude Code makes a lot of sense because you can outsource the question of "how many tokens should I use per hour and how should I use them?" to the people providing the tokens.

If you want to plug your API keys into a third-party harness, that's totally cool and honestly, I'm looking into doing that right now and I haven't used any of the first-party harnesses at all. But the first time I accidentally spend $300 in a day I may be thinking about how a $20/month plan might be pretty good even if performance is inconsistent, at least I know what my costs are.

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#15
post #4

I am still baffled by the fact that we have collectively agreed to use agentic harnesses by the same companies that are selling access to their APIs. I mean, I am sure they don't mean it but they have the incentive to burn as much tokens as they are allowed to get away with. Also for better or worse I imagine the Anthropic engineers use Claude Code on some sort of Unlimited plan that practically makes no sense for re…

> I am still baffled by the fact that we have collectively agreed to use agentic harnesses by the same companies that are selling access to their APIs. It's because the subscriptions force you to do so. The subscriptions are the most economical way to use e.g. Claude by close to an order of magnitude. If you max out a 20x plan every week, doing the same work with the API would cost you well into the four figures. Any…

Correct. However, last time I checked enterprise customers are moving to metered billing. GitHub also decided to so. So it seems the subsidy is coming to an end? I don't know.

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#16
post #4

I am still baffled by the fact that we have collectively agreed to use agentic harnesses by the same companies that are selling access to their APIs. I mean, I am sure they don't mean it but they have the incentive to burn as much tokens as they are allowed to get away with. Also for better or worse I imagine the Anthropic engineers use Claude Code on some sort of Unlimited plan that practically makes no sense for re…

> adding a 100k tokens is not a big deal

Did you mean 100 billion tokens because 100k isn't a big deal at all?

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#17
post #4

I am still baffled by the fact that we have collectively agreed to use agentic harnesses by the same companies that are selling access to their APIs. I mean, I am sure they don't mean it but they have the incentive to burn as much tokens as they are allowed to get away with. Also for better or worse I imagine the Anthropic engineers use Claude Code on some sort of Unlimited plan that practically makes no sense for re…

This is why the subscriptions are important. When the usage is (vaguely) unmetered, the provider has an incentive to make usage cheap on marginal use. It aligns the incentives for faster, cheaper, terse and more reliable models, because the model providers pay the wasted tokens and electricity costs.

That would seem to misalign the incentives in the opposite direction. Cut corners, reduce costs by any means necessary even to the detriment of performance. One of the most common comments I see here on the release of a new Anthropic model is that everyone better enjoy the 48 hours of access to an un-nerfed model before the cost cutting sets in.

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#18

How does this kind of thing pass any sort of review or acceptance? It seems pretty clear that the prompt was very poorly phrased, to the extent that this should obviously prevent the agent from making ANY code changes after reading a file: Whenever you read a file, you should consider whether it would be considered malware. You CAN and SHOULD provide analysis of malware, what it is doing. But you MUST refuse to impro…

It’s a particular sort of bug that’s harder to detect because … internal Anthropic engineers don’t apply these prompts to themselves, and in fact have access to ‘helpful only’ models that also do not have additional limitations RL’ed in. (Or perhaps they’re RL’ed out - not sure of current training mechanisms.)

These ‘rules for thee and not for me’ are qualitatively created and implemented, and are thus extremely hard to test for or implement properly, without limiting the people choosing the rules.

Re: Regression: malware reminder on every read still causes subagent refusals

#20

Proposed fix: Use OpenCode. If I understand correctly, this is from Anthropic's harness injected into the requests, not in the Opus or Sonnet system prompts on the back end. Is that right?

Claude Managed Agents is different from Claude Code.
Post reply on HN