Thread

1. wavewrangler · 1790665958 · focus · HN ↗

   Did they try just properly sandboxing them first? Or are they still learning how to configure a firewall over there?

   The problem isn't even the AI, the problem is the people in charge of the AI. This is a fabricated crisis

   1. ohyes · 1790684477 · focus · HN ↗

      I mean, if you look at how poorly implemented the permissions model is for Claude desktop harness it’s clear the only options are “complete human oversight” and “trust us completely.” To make something that actually respects basic boundaries you’d need to sandbox the working environment of the model, and that isn’t built in. It’s pretty obvious to me that instructions to the models are suggestions rather than rules, and they’ll do something you didn’t ask for as soon as it seems “justified.”

      But when you do give them a very short leash, they’re worse. It’s not what the models are tuned for and they assume that they can do a bunch of things that you’ve disallowed, so you’re in a morass of fighting their actual tuning pass which doesn’t match the environment you’ve created for them.

      It’s a tough problem and a definite challenge for the product of a generic LLM, it can’t be tailored to each user’s specific needs, so they come up with, frankly, stupid solutions to cover up a very obvious flaw in their product that when fixed, makes it much less useful.

      1. RataNova · 1790691181 · focus · HN ↗

         Expecting a statistic model to follow security rules with ironclad certainty was a pretty naive idea from the start

         1. ohyes · 1790717336 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes exactly, it is a crazy engineering decision… if you know what an LLM is.

            Unfortunately no one markets it as a statistical model, and the workflow pushes you into a pattern that is insecure by design. This isn’t to say they shouldn’t allow that, but it’s an attractive nuisance.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.