101–110 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having used a bit of a mix of Claude Desktop and Claude Code lately, I discovered that Claude Desktop just times out when it asks you for a decision, and just goes ahead with the action anyway. There is no way to turn this off that I've found, unlike Claude Code where you can ask it to never time out.
We need a term that is stronger than dark pattern
> Data suggests that manual review can become habitual: users approve 97% of permission prompts in Claude Code. Claude's 'auto mode' feels like a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. Cursor handles this much better IMO. When the agent wants to run a command, Cursor lets you choose between 'allow once' and 'add command to allowlist'. The latter lets the agent run that command (grep, ls, pwd etc) any number of t…
Does Cursor allow you to blacklist certain commands as well? I know OpenCode has this, where you can both whitelist things like grep/ls but then also blacklist things like cat .env, or rm -rf. I usually copy paste my configs nowadays, so I very rarely get prompted for any permissions (except when using Claude, which somehow decided that all users live in ~/Users, even on Linux)
No, Cursor only has an allowlist; no blacklist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude seems to waste a lot of tokens internally bickering with itself. As much as organizations are optimizing spend, Claude's product guidance seems to be doing everything to fight against that headwind. When operating in a capped cost environment, engineers will simply get less use out of it.
Boris from the team here. The classifier is free — we do not charge for safety features as a principle.
I'm apparently from the very small faction of users who's been running `--dangerously-skip-permissions` in every instance of Claude for the last year. It's almost a reflex to me. For the most part Claude behaves well, but I don't blindly trust it. LLMs are inherently dangerous tools, and reviewing individual commands (or spamming `y`) doesn't make them less so. Safety is the responsibility of the developer putting sa…
LLMs are inherently dangerous tools I don't see how. An LLM just generates a stream of output and they became very useful doing no more than that. What is dangerous is then interpreting that output as instructions to some other part of a system that has the ability to do damage if misused. and reviewing individual commands (or spamming `y`) doesn't make them less so. Surely if you review each instruction in the outpu…
"We spent the last several months testing whether auto mode is as safe or safer than an average user clicking through prompts." Yeah, might make sense from their perspective, but no thank you. I also do click through at times without reading everything, but I like to stay in control, learn about the new code and change direction if it goes off track. This would just burn more tokens because I have to throw away much…
The default is set for the marginal new user, which at this point is probably not someone like you (who benefits a lot from manual mode) -- it's someone who's more "code-naive" and might get anxious about approving random bash script commands they don't recognize. Safely getting the user from prompt --> first vibe-coded app is the "user journey" now, and since auto mode seems pretty good at not letting Claude rm -rf'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think literally anyone would stop reading these randomly long long bash commands at all after prompting Claude to do some basic sysadmin task and getting 15 of them in a row.
These models generate the most unreadable bash commands I've ever seen. Utilising every single option available and piping the result through multiple layers of regex and junk. The mental load of having to actually review these commands beyond the most surface level glance is too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude seems to waste a lot of tokens internally bickering with itself. As much as organizations are optimizing spend, Claude's product guidance seems to be doing everything to fight against that headwind. When operating in a capped cost environment, engineers will simply get less use out of it.
Boris from the team here. The classifier is free — we do not charge for safety features as a principle.
Their findings about auto mode catching more dangerous commands, and most permission requests being accepted without scrutiny is interesting. I can totally see how that happens. On the other hand, soooo many of the tool uses it asks permission for are custom commands to replace functionality I should be able to trust once instead. e.g. instead of having a trustable Find tool, or using its already-trusted Read tool, i…
Regarding ulterior motives - these permissions are 'performative' in that anything you can give it permission to do, it already has the ability to do. They're app level - not OS level. So if they wanted to do something, it wouldn't require you to give permission.
Just like your browser can do everything already, but only lets websites use specific features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Auto mode means I don't decide over code changes and command execution? Yeah I don't use that, nor want to.
> I also do click through at times without reading everything, but I like to stay in control Respectfully I'm not sure you totally know what you want. If you're already clicking through without actually reading, it's not really better than reading the specific things Claude Code thinks are important for you to weigh in on.
I skim what claude wants to do. What file it wants to modify. What are the new function names. Skimming is enough for me to know whether it is still on the right path. If you like to work different, go ahead.