Live data from Hacker News

Claude for Chrome

anthropic.com

91–100 of 433 posts

Re: Claude for Chrome

#91
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is that the average user of an LLM is close enough to the average user of a computer and I've found that the general consensus is that security practices are "annoying" and "get in the way". The same kind of user who hates anything MFA and writes their password on a sticky note that they stick to their monitor in the office.

it has been revelatory to me to realize that this is how most people want to interact with computers. i want a computer to be predictable and repeatable. sometimes, i experience behavior that is surprising. usually this is an indication that my mental model does not match the computer model. in these cases, i investigate and update my mental model to match the computer. most people are not willing to adjust their men…

I think most people don't want to interact with computers and people will use anything that reduces the amount of time spent and will be be embraced en-mass regardless of security or privacy issues.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#92
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing new. We've allowed humans to use computers for ages. Security-wise, this is closer to "human substitute" than it is to a "browser substitute". With all the issues of letting a random human have access to critical systems, on top of all the early AI tech jank. We've automated PEBKAC.

I don’t know any human who’ll transfer their money or send their private information to a malicious third party because invisible text on a webpage says so.

The only weird thing is the "invisible" part. The rest is consistent with known user behavior.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#93
I love Claude via the website interface. I can't wait to try Claude Code. Once I have a separate computer with none of my personal information or files on it I'm going to use the heck out of it. I'd probably even install Claude for Chrome on it.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insane how we're throwing out decades of security research because it's slightly annoying to have to write your own emails.

The absolute disregard is astonishing. How big of an incident will it take for any restraint to exist? Folks on HN are at least somewhat informed of the risks and can make choices, but the typical user still expects some modicum of security when installing an app or using a service.

A typical user also happily gives away all their personal information for free just to scroll through cat videos or see what % irish they are.

Even the HN crowd aimlessly runs curl | sh, npm i -g, and rando browser ext.

I agree, it's ridiculous but this isn't anything new.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#95
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know any human who’ll transfer their money or send their private information to a malicious third party because invisible text on a webpage says so.

Yeah this isn’t a substitute, it’s automation taking action based on inputs the user may not even see, and doing it so fast without the likelihood a user would intervene. If it’s a substitute its no better than trusting someone with the keys to your house, only for them to be easily instructed to rob your house by a 3rd party.

This is like `curl | bash` but you automatically execute the code on every webpage you visit with full access to your browser.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#96
post #6

> Malicious actors can hide instructions in websites, emails, and documents that trick AI into taking harmful actions without your knowledge, including: > * Accessing your accounts or files > * Sharing your private information > * Making purchases on your behalf > * Taking actions you never intended This should really be at the top of the page and not one full screen below the "Try" button.

It's insane how we're throwing out decades of security research because it's slightly annoying to have to write your own emails.

I can accept a bit of form-letter from help desks, or in certain business cases. And the same for crafting a generic, informative letter being sent to thousands.

But as soon it gets one on one, the use of AI should almost be a crime. It certainly should be a social taboo. It's almost akin to talking to a person, one on one, and discovering they have a hidden earpiece, and are being prompted on how to respond.

And if I send an email to an employee, or conversely even the boss of a company I work for, I won't abide someone pretending to reply, but instead pasting junk from an AI. Ridiculous.

There isn't enough context in the world, to enable an AI to respond with clarity and historical knowledge, to such emails. People's value has to do as much with their institutional knowledge, shared corporate experiences, and personal background, not genericized AI responses.

It's kinda sad to come to a place, where you begin to think the Unibomber was right. (Though of course, his methods were wrong)

edit:

I've been hit by some downvotes. I've noticed that some portion of HN is exceptionally AI pro, but I suspect instead it may have something to do with my Unabomber comment.

For context, at least what I gathered from his manifesto, there was a deep distrust of machines, and how they were interfering with human communication and happiness.

Fast forward to social media, mobile phones, AI, and more... and he seems to have been on to something.

From wikipedia:

"He wrote that technology has had a destabilizing effect on society, has made life unfulfilling, and has caused widespread psychological suffering."

Again, clearly his methods were wrong. Yet I see the degradation of US politics into the most simplistic, team-centric, childish arguments... all best able to spread hate, anger, and rage on social media. I see people, especially youth deeply unhappy from their exposure to social media. I see people spending more time with an electronic box in their hand, than with fellow humans.

We always say that we should approach new technology with open eyes, but we seldom mean this about examining negatives. And as a society we've ignored warnings, and negatives with social media, with phones, and we are absolutely not better off as a result.

So perhaps we should use those lessons, and try to ensure that AI is a plus, not a minus in this new world?

For me, replacing intimate human communication with AI, replacing one-on-one conversations with the humans we work with, play with, are friends with, with AI? That's sad. So very, very, very sad.

Once, many years ago a friend of mine was upset. A conservative politician was going door to door, trying to get elected. This politician was railing against the fact that there was a park down the street, paid for by the city. He was upset that taxes paid for it, and that the city paid to keep it up.

Sure, this was true, but my friend after said to me "We're trying to have a society here!".

And I think that's part of what bugs me about AI. We're trying to have a society here!, and part of that is communicating with each other.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#97
post #7

> We’re launching with 1,000 Max users and expanding gradually based on what we learn. This measured approach helps us validate safeguards before broader deployment. Somewhat comforting they’re not yolo-ing it too much, but I frankly don’t see how the prompt injection issues with browser agents that act on your behalf can be surmounted - maybe other than the company guaranteeing “we’ll reimburse you for any unintenti…

Since the LLM has to inherently make tool/API calls to do anything, can't you gate those behind a confirmation box that describes what it wants to do? And you could whitelist APIs like "Fill form textarea with {content}" vs more destructive ones like "Submit form" or "Make request to {url} with {body}". Edit: It seems to already do this. Granted, you'd still have to be eternally vigilant.

When every operation needs to be approved (every button click, every form entry, etc.) does it even make sense to use an agent?

And it’s not like you can easily “always allow” let’s say, certain actions on certain websites, because the issue is less with the action, and more with the data passed to it.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#98
post #6

> Malicious actors can hide instructions in websites, emails, and documents that trick AI into taking harmful actions without your knowledge, including: > * Accessing your accounts or files > * Sharing your private information > * Making purchases on your behalf > * Taking actions you never intended This should really be at the top of the page and not one full screen below the "Try" button.

It's insane how we're throwing out decades of security research because it's slightly annoying to have to write your own emails.

while at the same time talking nonstop about how "AI alignment" and "AI safety" are extremely important

Re: Claude for Chrome

#99
I really don't like Dia. Hijacking the search bar to use their own AI model, which is just slower than google's AI mode is such a bad experience. I am happy for chrome to have built-in AI tools when needed.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#100
post #6

> Malicious actors can hide instructions in websites, emails, and documents that trick AI into taking harmful actions without your knowledge, including: > * Accessing your accounts or files > * Sharing your private information > * Making purchases on your behalf > * Taking actions you never intended This should really be at the top of the page and not one full screen below the "Try" button.

I think you’re being way too cynical. The first sentence talks about risks:

> When AI can interact with web pages, it creates meaningful value, but also opens up new risks

And the majority of the copy in the page is talking about risks and mitigations.

Eg reviewing commands before they are executed.

Post reply on HN