Thread

1. continuational · 1786022679 · focus · HN ↗

   It's kinda funny there is still software coming out whose security model is "constantly ask the user for permission, and hope they never make a mistake".

   It's been tried so many times before, and it never worked.

   1. est31 · 1786022931 · focus · HN ↗

      I think it's partially for responsibility reasons. Your employee approved the bash call? not our fault then!

      1. Aurornis · 1786027472 · focus · HN ↗

         If a company advertised an LLM as perfectly safe and then it caused some damage, there would be a case against the company.

         Have you used LLM tooling? It comes with warnings and explains that the user accepts the risk. Different levels of warning are supplied for the different levels of autonomy you can enable. The user has to understand the risk as they enable it.

         This is not a new concept and it’s not an idea the LLM companies invented. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.

         1. autoexec · 1786035306 · focus · HN ↗

            It's not new to LLM companies, but it does seem like they're leaning away from the standard "Hey, don't blame us if this doesn't work" and are moving into "It's now your fault any time our software fucks something up" which feels new.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.