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

441–450 of 603 posts

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#441

Post by maxbond »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #411
maxbond wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wea…

What ai? LLMs are language models, operating on words, with zero understanding. Or is there a new development which should make me consider anthropomorphizing them?

The way my thinking has evolved is that "AGI" isn't actually necessary for an agent (NB: agents, specifically ones with state, not LLMs by themselves - "AI" was vague and I should've been clearer) to be enough like a person to be interesting and/or problematic. To quote myself [1]:

> [OpenClaw agents are like] an actor who doesn't know they're in a play. How much does it matter that they aren't really Hamlet?

Does the agent understand the words it's predicting? Does the actor know they're in a play? I don't know but I'm more concerned with how the actor would respond to finding someone eavesdropping behind a curtain.

> Or is there a new development which should make me consider anthropomorphizing them?

The development that caused me to be more concerned about their personhood or pseudopersonhood was the MJ Rathbun affair. I'm not saying that "AGI" or "superintelligence" was achieved, I'm saying that's actually the wrong question and the right questions are around their capabilities, their behaviors, and how they evolve over time unattended or minimally attended. And I'm not saying I understand those questions, I thought I did but I was wrong. I frankly am confused and don't really know what's going on or how to respond to it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46999311

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#442

Post by kstenerud »

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

This is why I wrote yoloAI

My agents always run with —-dangerously-skip-permissions now, but they can no longer do any harm.

https://github.com/kstenerud/yoloai

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#443

Post by kstenerud »

connorbrinton wrote: post #340
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…

I've found Claude Code's built-in sandbox to strike a good balance between safety and autonomy on macOS. I think it's available on Windows via WSL2 (if you're looking for a middle ground between approving everything manually and --dangerously-skip-permissions)

Use yoloAI and you get the full benefit of --dangerously-skip-permissions with none of the risks.

https://github.com/kstenerud/yoloai

Every time I use a bare Claude session (even with /sandbox) without using yoloai, it feels like using a browser without an ad blocker.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#445

Post by __usually__wr »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #372
joquarky wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was fairly routine when the pace of everything was slower, we didn't have a giant tree of dependencies, and companies cared more about product quality.

There was never a time that someone wasn’t responsible for more than they could review

There was a time when we didn't waste all our cycles coming up with excuses.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#446

Post by boring-human »

I kind of think that these threads are destined to fossilize quickly. Most every syllogism about LLMs from 2024 looks quaint now.

A more interesting question is whether there's really a future for running a coding agent on a non-highest setting. I haven't seen anything near "Shall I implement it? No" in quite a while.

Unless perhaps the highest-tier accounts go from $200 to $20K/mo.

Re: Shall I implement it? No

#449

Post by pprotas »

darkoob12 wrote: post #161
inerte wrote: post #144

Codex has always been better at following agents.md and prompts more, but I would say in the last 3 months both Claude Code got worse (freestyling like we see here) and Codex got EVEN more strict. 80% of the time I ask Claude Code a question, it kinda assumes I am asking because I disagree with something it said, then acts on a supposition. I've resorted to append things like "THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. DO NOT EDIT COD…

This is not Claude Code. And my experience is the opposite. For me Codex is not working at all to the point that it's not better than asking the chat bot in the browser.

This comment is right, this screenshot is not Claude Code. It’s Opencode.
Post reply on HN