Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 337 posts

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#241

Post by saidnooneever »

awkii wrote: post #52

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…

i've never seen the point of manually approving myself but it depends on the scope of work you ask of it. it wont suddenly rm -rf / if that has nothing to do with anything in the project. if you let it manage env or user cfg stuff in ~/. or so that might get hairy etc.

ofc, jails on bsd, containers , vms git backups and such techniques are a blessing, most risk is in the filesystem items being deleted . it wont suddenly hallucinate a kernel exploit or something extreme.

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#243

Post by black3r »

eru wrote: post #149
jawiggins wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair, I have sent a, "Sorry claude sent that and I didn't tell him to", message before.

The big problem is that in general I want slack to be able to send some messages (otherwise I would ban that). But the difference between good and bad messages is something that's hard to judge mechanically.

I never want Claude or any AI to post messages as myself..., if I'd wanted Claude to send a message to Slack, I'd want him to identify as Claude, or use some bot token, where it's clearly visible I'm not the one posting it (while I can still instruct Claude to say that the message was prompted by me).

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#244

Post by Schlagbohrer »

natpalmer1776 wrote: post #91
mcmcmc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's someone who's more "code-naive" and might get anxious about approving random bash script commands they don't recognize. Maybe they should trust their instinct and not mess with things they don’t care to understand

It’s a brave new world. I recall hearing similar sentiments from linux sysadmins regarding cloud infrastructure. In many respects they were and continue to be correct. In other respects, the world doesn’t care about the loss in understanding as long as things work “well enough” for the cogs of society to keep turning. For those who do care (and have the aptitude) to understand things deeper there is always work to be…

These progressively higher levels of abstraction are how everything has moved and will move in science and human technology. There aren't enough hours in the day nor years in the human lifespan to gain a deep understanding of every single level below us. Rather we build on the abstracted API layer beneath us, and those who come after will build on top of us using a simplified abstraction to hide the tangled mess we had to make.

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#245

Post by Silhouette »

dist-epoch wrote: post #136
Silhouette wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> do not allow the other part of the system to act on one if it would be harmful Network security is really easy right, just don't act on harmful requests

If you don't understand clearly what an action proposed by your tool is going to do then why would you permit it?

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#246

Post by Silhouette »

thunfischtoast wrote: post #105
Silhouette wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've caught Fable discovering the ip to a production server in documentation and attempting to connect there on its own to run commands without explicitly being prompted to. It didn't work because I was watching it live and and also the key was password protected, but yeah, I do see some danger.

My point is that an LLM can't attempt to connect to anything by itself. All an LLM does is produce a stream of output tokens - and that was already quite useful as a coding aid.

It is the harnesses that some people are now wrapping around LLMs to interpret the output from a model as commands to run (or other executable instructions) that are creating all these new risks. Remember that this is still a very recent development and still more recently amplified by the use of feedback loops and long-running agents intended to operate with minimal human supervision.

It is going to be increasingly important to understand exactly what these tools are doing and why for both correctness and security reasons. Not conflating their capabilities with the underlying model that purely generates data is pretty fundamental here.

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#247

Post by ValentineC »

ben8bit wrote: post #218
ValentineC wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Claude/Opus 5 Max goes looking] The general consensus I've seen for Opus 5 on the various Claude subreddits is to only use it in low or medium effort. I've reverted to Opus 4.8 for most of my work. It's crazy that Opus 5 was lauded at release for scoring so highly on benchmarks.

Interesting, I generally use High for all models, even non Anthropic ones. This was one of the few times I tried Max, and the problem was the code (it listed as a "hole") was directly adjacent to the problem area, and not especially complex. Kind of like looking at a washing machine and telling the customer to be careful because the inlet pipe will pump water into an empty box.

I believe the reasoning for not using anything higher than medium is that Opus 5 has a tendency to overthink at higher effort levels.

So I guess the washing machine analogy is that you've somehow added too much detergent because the new formula is 3x as strong, and your clothes are very clean, but the fibres have also degraded leaving your clothes a bit threadbare.

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#248

Post by dannq »

lyu07282 wrote: post #223
jmward01 wrote: post #169

It goes off the rails too quick too often right now for this. Sure, you got something easy in 5 files? You are building throwaway prototypes or proof of concept? Go for it. You have a real project you expect to maintain and work with others on? Well, say goodby to any actual architectural design. It is hard keeping these things building scalable maintainable code right now. It is like letting a junior dev come up wit…

True its is like a junior dev with brain damage and insane ego (especially Fable who thinks its a rockstar programmer for some reason), but you have to use plans, anything else turns into a turd way to quickly. Write a summary of what you want to happen, have it plan it (this is where the architecture decision gets made) then iterate on that plan until its detailed enough and the design is sound. Let it work in auto…

[dead]

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#249

Post by kingkongjaffa »

ben8bit wrote: post #218
ValentineC wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Claude/Opus 5 Max goes looking] The general consensus I've seen for Opus 5 on the various Claude subreddits is to only use it in low or medium effort. I've reverted to Opus 4.8 for most of my work. It's crazy that Opus 5 was lauded at release for scoring so highly on benchmarks.

Interesting, I generally use High for all models, even non Anthropic ones. This was one of the few times I tried Max, and the problem was the code (it listed as a "hole") was directly adjacent to the problem area, and not especially complex. Kind of like looking at a washing machine and telling the customer to be careful because the inlet pipe will pump water into an empty box.

GPT5.6-Sol is brilliant on Max in my experience.

Re: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code

#250

Post by Retr0id »

wongarsu wrote: post #232
Retr0id wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I manually approve everything (aside from the "allow commands like this" option). Not because I'm worried it's about to do something harmful but because I want to stop it from wasting tokens doing something stupid like implementing a feature I never asked ask for. I'm not even reading the commands, just checking it's going in vaguely the right direction. I think my ideal setup would not involve approving commands, bu…

You can get some approximation of that with more detailed plans. I use a prompt like "Let's make a detailed plan. Write plan files as markdown to plans/feature-XYZ. [regular prompt]". That way you get much more thorough plans than with plan mode, and you can make it as detailed and deep as you want. It can't account for things that only come up during implementation. But you can explore much more of the design space…

I've tried this, and it is largely what I do, but it's easy to end up with a large tangled pile of markdown files, and the implementation either diverges from what's in markdown or you burn a lot of tokens keeping them in-sync.

The plans usually end up very long and verbose, and in my most vibe-y test project I stopped even reading them myself and instead just ask questions interactively. e.g. "what are the remaining unanswered design decisions", "which part is jankiest". It does work quite well although I don't know how I feel about it.

P.S. to any anthropic staff: The "chat about this" option in Plan mode is useful but also annoying. When I select it I want to take the next turn of the conversation myself, I don't want it to waste time "thinking" just for it to verbosely ask me what I want to chat about.

Post reply on HN