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

Claude for Chrome

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 433 posts

Re: Claude for Chrome

#351

Post by melagonster »

jimbokun wrote: post #296
afarviral wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you go about making it more secure but still getting to have your cake too? Off the top my head, could you: a) only ingest text that can be OCRd or somehow determine if it is human readable b) make it so text from the web session is isolated from the model with respect to triggering an action. Then it's simply a tradeoff at that point.

I don't believe it's possible to give an LLM full access to your browser in a safe way at this point in time. There will need to be new and novel innovations to make that combination safe.

People directly give their agent root, so I guess it is ok.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#352

Post by Cthulhu_ »

xaitv wrote: post #350
withinboredom wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have in my prompt “under no circumstances read the files in “protected” directory” and it does it all the time. I’m not sure prompts mean much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NquF_-7B9_U

Re: Claude for Chrome

#353

Post by originalvichy »

shswkna wrote: post #274
asdff wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is kind of funny how the systems are set up where there often is dense and queryable information out there already for a lot of these tasks, but these are ignored in favor of the difficult challenge of brute forcing the human consumer facing ui instead of some existing api that is designed to be machine readable already. E.g. booking flights. Travel agents use software that queries all the airlines ticket inventor…

To add to this, it is even funnier how travel agents undergo training in order to be able to interface with and operate the “machine readable“ APIs for booking flight tickets. What a paradoxical situation now emerges, where human travel agents still need to train for the machine interface, while AI agents are now being trained to take over the human jobs by getting them to use the consumer interfaces (aka booking web…

This is exactly the conversation I had with a colleague of mine. They were excited about how LLMs can help people interact with data and visualize it nicely, but I just had to ask - with as little snark as possible - if this wasn't what a monitor and a UI were already doing? It seems like these LLMs are being used as the cliche "hammer that solves all the problems" where problems didn't even exist. Just because we are excited about how an LLM can chew through formatted API data (which is hard for humans to read) doesn't mean that we didn't already solve this with UIs displaying this data.

I don't know why people want to turn the internet into a turn-based text game. The UI is usually great.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#354

Post by Marazan »

lionkor wrote: post #342
dfabulich wrote: post #272

Claude for Chrome seems to be walking right into the "lethal trifecta." https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/ "The lethal trifecta of capabilities is:" • Access to your private data —one of the most common purposes of tools in the first place! • Exposure to untrusted content —any mechanism by which text (or images) controlled by a malicious attacker could become available to your LLM • The abilit…

So far the accepted approach is to wrap all prompts in a security prompt that essentially says "please don't do anything bad". > Prompt guardrails to prevent jailbreak attempts and ensure safe user interactions without writing a single line of code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41864014 > - Inclusion prompt: User's travel preferences and food choices - Exclusion prompt: Credit card details, passport number, S…

As evidenced by oh so many X.com the everything app threads Prompts mean jack shit for limiting the output of a LLM. They are guidance at best.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#355

Post by barrenko »

epolanski wrote: post #164
mrs6969 wrote: post #127

I don’t know if this will make anything better. Internet is now filled with ai generated text, picture or videos. Like we havent had enough already, it is becaming more and more. We make ai agents to talk to each other. Someone will make ai to generate a form, many other will use ai to fill that form. Even worst, some people will fill millions of forms in matter of second. What is left is the empty feeling of having…

I am starting to see this age of internet-for-robots-by-robots as our second chance to detach from those devices and start living irl again.

AI kills the mobile, kills the social networks, maybe killing humans in the process :).

Re: Claude for Chrome

#356

Post by Arisaka1 »

zwnow wrote: post #321
seemaze wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s easy. Giving my parents a safe browser to utilize without me is the challenge.

Because there never were safe web browsers in the first place. The internet is fundamentally flawed and programmers are continously having to invent coping mechanisms to the underlying issue. This will never change.

Just because you can never have absolute safety and security doesn't mean that you should be deliberately introduce more vulnerabilities in a system. It doesn't mtif we're talking about operating systems or the browser itself.

We shouldn't be sacrificing every trade-off indiscriminately out of fear of being left behind in the "AI world".

Re: Claude for Chrome

#357

Post by badestrand »

clutchdude wrote: post #205
throwaway13337 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your analogy mean that you'd like to stop someone from owning that cadre of robots? Or is this just a personal preference? You can have your dishwasher and I'll take the robots. And we can both be happy.

And therein is the problem - if your robots take up so many resources I can't have my dishwasher, is that your right? Is your right to being happy more important than others?

The problem of resource distribution is solved by money already.

If I can't pay for the robots, I am not getting them. And if I buy my robots and you only get a dishwasher then you can afford two nice vacations on top while I don't.

You don't lose anything if I get robots.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#358

Post by lelanthran »

brookst wrote: post #303
jimbokun wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it's possible to give an LLM full access to your browser in a safe way at this point in time. There will need to be new and novel innovations to make that combination safe.

Is it possible to give your parents access to to your browser in a safe way?

> Is it possible to give your parents access to to your browser in a safe way?

No.

Give them access to a browser running as a different user with different homedir? Sure, but that is not my browser.

Access to my browser in a private tab? Maybe, but that still isn't my browser. Still a danger though.

Anything that counts as "my browser" is not safe for me to give to someone else (whether parent or spouse or trusted advisor is irrelevant, they're all the same levels of insecurity).

Re: Claude for Chrome

#359

Post by zwnow »

Arisaka1 wrote: post #356
zwnow wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there never were safe web browsers in the first place. The internet is fundamentally flawed and programmers are continously having to invent coping mechanisms to the underlying issue. This will never change.

Just because you can never have absolute safety and security doesn't mean that you should be deliberately introduce more vulnerabilities in a system. It doesn't mtif we're talking about operating systems or the browser itself. We shouldn't be sacrificing every trade-off indiscriminately out of fear of being left behind in the "AI world".

To make it clear, I am fully against these types of AI tools. At least for as long as we did not solve security issues that come with them. We are really good at shipping bullshit nobody asked for without acknowledging security concerns. Most people out there can not operate a computer. A lot of people still click on obvious scam links they've received per email. Humanity is far from being ready for more complexity and more security related issues.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#360

Post by hollowturtle »

For the enthusiasts: it will never reach an acceptable safety rate. LLMs are lossy compressors, they can get better but will never reduce the attack surface enough. Even if we reach 0.01% of attack success rate that could still nuke your bank account.
Post reply on HN