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

The ways we contain Claude across products

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 128 posts

Re: The ways we contain Claude across products

#81

Post by vrganj »

jon-wood wrote: post #79
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #9

The framing they use is hilarious and their little graphic is perfect. The risk of harm doesn't go down, but the reward goes up, so the harm just becomes the cost of doing business, justified by the reward. So as the reward gets higher and higher, the amount of harm they're willing to justify goes up. Feels like society in a nutshell.

Everything you do a risk/reward equation, you just don't usually see it drawn out quite so starkly. Getting out of bed in the morning carries a risk that you'll trip and crack your head on the floor. Crossing a road carries a risk of being hit by a bus. Eating food carries a risk of choking on it. The same is true in computer security. The only truly secure computer is one you don't turn on, and even that carries som…

But if you eat food, I don't risk choking. They want us to take the risk for their reward.

Re: The ways we contain Claude across products

#84

Post by Terretta »

There are a number of clearly LLM written comments flagged dead below. The article itself, so clearly LLM written, is still kicking.

To be fair, it's worth wading through the phraseology to understand the perspective of the article's prompters.

But there are so many cliché constructs it's distracting:

> The GitHub README example mentioned earlier is exactly this case; any input scanning applied to web pages needs to be applied to network-enabled tool results with the same rigor.

> Claude Cowork's answer to agent identity is concrete: credentials stay in the host keychain, the VM gets a per-session scoped-down token, and that token can be revoked independently of the user's.

Honestly, for sifting LLM from human the article shows exactly the problem: colleagues have begun to talk like Claude in everyday interaction.*

* and not deliberately as here

Re: The ways we contain Claude across products

#85

Post by zaphar »

enraged_camel wrote: post #66
chrncirurp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the point is that at small scale a single accident poses a risk of ruin to your small operations. At big scale, a single big accident poses a risk to ruin your big operations.

No, it does not. Every large company eventually has a big accident. They survive because they have both the resources (e.g. to fight ensuing legal battles, or pay fines, or simply weather a hit to reputation and the resulting downturn in revenue) as well as redundancy, different types of insurance, and so on.

They also survive because they invest those resources in some amount of mitigation ahead of time. They don't survive when they don't scale their mitigations along with the business.

Re: The ways we contain Claude across products

#87

Post by bob1029 »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #65
bob1029 wrote: post #52

You can create an impenetrable prison for the LLM agents if you are willing to employ old school tech like Postgres, MSSQL or Oracle to solve the problem. I can't think of a better sandbox. No other ecosystem is as complete. Using virtual machines & containers is way too much, IMO. If you want to give the agent arbitrary code execution, allowing it to write [T/PL/pg]SQL over explicitly granted schema objects seems to…

People primarily use these agents to operate on files specifically so where does your SQL even fit into that? How is row level security related to having it edit some code files, run a test, then execute some git commands?

> these agents to operate on files specifically so where does your SQL even fit into that?

VARCHAR(MAX)

I can tell HN isn't very interested in this idea today. I won't waste time trying to explain it further.

Re: The ways we contain Claude across products

#88

Post by weird-eye-issue »

bob1029 wrote: post #87
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People primarily use these agents to operate on files specifically so where does your SQL even fit into that? How is row level security related to having it edit some code files, run a test, then execute some git commands?

> these agents to operate on files specifically so where does your SQL even fit into that? VARCHAR(MAX) I can tell HN isn't very interested in this idea today. I won't waste time trying to explain it further.

Yes, clearly you are just too smart for us and so you must make extremely vague comments to further enforce your intelligence.

I think you work too much with data and you don't have any sort of grasp on how humans are actually using these AI agents for their work today.

Re: The ways we contain Claude across products

#89

Post by truculent »

altmanaltman wrote: post #40
esikich wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. You start a PC repair business. At first, losing a stick of RAM or frying someone's motherboard is super costly when you are doing 10 a week. But once you're doing 1000, that's pretty damn good and easily covered. When you have more tools, velocity, and whatnot, the proportions change.

Wouldn't you lose multiple sticks or fry multiple motherboards as you scale and do 1000? If you're frying 1 at 10, that means you're frying 100 at 1000. Your costs etc will scale as well unless you actually lower the risk/reward ratio, no?

The point is that if you have a 10% chance of frying motherboard, at 10 a week, you might expect 1 fried p/w, but it could easily be more which may be catastrophic.

At 1000, the number of fried boards will be more predictable and therefore the risk to the business is lower, even if the long-run averages are the same.

Post reply on HN