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

Shall I implement it? No

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 603 posts

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#321

Post by maxbond »

nmilo wrote: post #305
joegibbs wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude Code has added too much of this and it's got me using --dangerously-skip-permissions all the time. Previously it was fine but now it needs to get permission each time to perform finds, do anything if the path contains a \ (which any folder with a space in it does on Windows), do compound git commands (even if they're just read-only). Sometimes it asks for permission to read folders WITHIN the working directory…

Claude is secretly conditioning everyone to use —-dangerously-skip-permissions so it can flip a switch one day and start a botnet

My friends and I were talking about the recent supply chain attack which harmlessly installed OpenClaw. We came to the conclusion that this was a warning (from a human) that an agent could easily do the same. Given how soft security is in general, AI "escaping containment" feels inevitable. (The strong form of that hypothesis where it subjugates or eliminates us isn't inevitable, I honestly have no idea, just the weak form where we fail to erect boundaries it cannot bypass. We've basically already failed.)

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#322

Post by samrus »

adriand wrote: post #319
motoboi wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole “chat with an AI” paradigm is the culprit here. Priming people to think they are actually having a conversation with something that has a mind model. It’s just a text generator that generates plausible text for this role play. But the chat paradigm is pretty useful in helping the human. It’s like chat is a natural I/O interface for us.

I disagree that it’s “just a text generator” but you are so right about how primed people are to think they’re talking to a person. One of my clients has gone all-in on openclaw: my god, the misunderstanding is profound. When I pointed out a particularly serious risk he’d opened up, he said, “it won’t do that, because I programmed it not to”. No, you tried to persuade it not to with a single instruction buried in a s…

> No, you tried to persuade it not to with a single instruction

Even persuade is too strong a word. These things dont have the motivation needed to enable persuation being a thing. Whay your client did was put one data point in the context that it will use to generate the next tokens from. If that one data point doesnt shift the context enough to make it produce an output that corresponds to that daya point, then it wont. Thats it, no sentience involved

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#323

Post by canadiantim »

dostick wrote: post #213

Its gotten so bad that Claude will pretend in 10 of 10 cases that task is done/on screenshot bug is fixed, it will even output screenshot in chat, and you can see the bug is not fixed pretty clear there. I consulted Claude chat and it admitted this as a major problem with Claude these days, and suggested that I should ask what are the coordinates of UI controls are on screenshot thus forcing it to look. So I did that…

This is why you need a red-green-refactor TDD skill

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#324

Post by komali2 »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #159
sid_talks wrote: post #38

[flagged]

[flagged]

> enabling programmers around the world to be far more productive

I know a lot of us feel this way, but why isn't there more evidence of it than our feelings? Where's the explosion of FOSS projects and businesses? And why do studies keep coming out showing decreased productivity? Why aren't there oodles of studies showing increases of productivity?

I like kicking back and letting claude do my job but I've yet to see evidence of this increased productivity. Objectively speaking, "I" seem to be "writing" the same amount of code as I was before, just with less cognitive effort.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#325

Post by dehrmann »

raincole wrote: post #313
tianrking wrote: post #241

[flagged]

Everyone who uses these tools seriously is running it on YOLO mode. It might sound crazy for someone who just started adopting agentic coding but it's how things are done now. Either that or just hand coding. The SOTA of permission management is just to git restore when AI fucks up, and to roll back docker snapshot when it fucks up big time.

I was doing something involving API keys and I realized Junie (backed by Sonnet) likes too write helper scripts to try things. And who knows where those scripts look or if they honor .aiignore. Agentic development is a real test of internal access control.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#326

Post by JeremyNT »

raincole wrote: post #313
tianrking wrote: post #241

[flagged]

Everyone who uses these tools seriously is running it on YOLO mode. It might sound crazy for someone who just started adopting agentic coding but it's how things are done now. Either that or just hand coding. The SOTA of permission management is just to git restore when AI fucks up, and to roll back docker snapshot when it fucks up big time.

Yep, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. It's far easier to undo the 1% of the time they fuck up in a serious way than it is to manually audit and allow an the routine stuff.

The key is to only give them access to things you're willing to lose.

This is also why giving them any kind of direct write access to production is a bad idea.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#327

Post by evolighting »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #302
ianbutler wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cmd-shift-p (at least in vscode)

shift-tab in cli

It actually work, got "Plan mode (shift+tab to cycle)" at corner.

reading the manual , there is Slash commands /plan /plan switch to Plan mode

It seems that, unlike OpenCode, Codex doesn't show a notice for mode by default.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#328

Post by znort_ »

reconnecting wrote: post #172
vidarh wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent 30 years seeing the junk many human developers deliver, so I've had 30 years to figure out how we build systems around teams to make broken output coalesce into something reliable. A lot of people just don't realise how bad the output of the average developer is, nor how many teams successfully ship with developers below average. To me, that's a large part of why I'm happy to use LLMs extensively. Some thi…

Did you also notice the evolution of average developers over time? I mean, if you take code from a developer ten years ago and compare it with their output now, you can see improvement. I assume that over time, the output improves because of the effort and time the developer invests in themselves. However, LLMs might reduce that effort to zero — we just don't know how developers will look after ten years of using LLM…

> if you take code from a developer ten years ago and compare it with their output now, you can see improvement.

really? it depends on the type of development, but ten years ago the coder profession had already long gone mainstream and massified, with a lot of people just attracted by a convenient career rather than vocation. mediocrity was already the baseline ("agile" mentality to at the very least cope with that mediocrity and turnover churn was already at its peak) and on the other extreme coder narcissism was already en vogue.

the tools, resources, environments have indoubtedly improved a lot, though at the cost of overhead, overcomplexity. higher abstraction levels help but promote detachment from the fundamentals.

so specific areas and high end teams have probably improved, but i'd say average code quality has actually diminished, and keeps doing so. if it weren't for qa, monitoring, auditing and mitigation processes it would by now be catastrophic. cue in agents and vibe coding ...

as an old school coder that nowadays only codes for fun i see llm tools as an incredibly interesting and game changing tool for the profane, but that a professional coder might cede control to an agent (as opposed to use it for prospection or menial work) makes me already cringe, and i'm unable to wrap my head around vibe coding.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#329

Post by beart »

tekacs wrote: post #245
tianrking wrote: post #241

[flagged]

It kinda... does? The problem is that folks have been flailing on the right UX for this. This is what build vs. plan mode _does_ in OpenCode. OpenAI has taken a different approach in Codex, where Plan mode can perform any actions (it just has an extra plan tool), but in OC in plan mode, IIRC write operations are turned off. The screenshot shows that the experience had just flipped from Plan to Build mode, which is wh…

The switch from plan mode to build is not always clearly defined. On a number of occasions, I've been in plan mode and enter a secondary follow up prompt to modify the plan. However, instead of updating the plan, the follow up text is taken as approval to build and it automatically switches to building.

Ask mode, on the other hand, has always explicitly indicated that I need to switch out of ask mode to perform any actions.

This is my experience with Cursor CLI.

Post reply on HN