Hacker News Reader

Comment by prologic | Hacker News Reader

May I ask what the motivation behind KilllSwitch is? Out of curiosity, I decided to test your claims and asked Claude to build a program in Go and Claude Skill that is able to decompile (from) and compile (to) KS programs along with a Claude Skill that doesn't trip it up. It all works™ -- All your example programs.

So, whilst I _think_ you've built a very clever interpreter, I don't think you can get around the fact that someone (like me) could just build around the noise you've created anyway.

Right?

View on HN

The motivation is to build a language that is ideally impossible for LLMs to read/write/understand, or at the very least as difficult as possible. It's cool that you've given it a try, but if you feed Claude the KillSwitch source code it can feasibly just analyse the Rust interpreter source code and likely get around understanding the language itself.

I'm much more interested in the benchmarks[1] I have built which do show LLMs not being able to gain full ability to understand it. The benchmarks only give the model access to the interpreter binary and the spec, nothing else and no internet access. I'd also be interested in other's ideas of how to make the language even more resistant to LLMs/coding agents.

1 - https://bench.killswitch-lang.org/

I think you missed my point. What I'm saying is that your concern over building a language that LLM(s) initially can't read or understand, whilst is very admirable, is futile IMO. Why? Because you're not trying to protect your code from LLM(s) at all, there are humans behind these tools. e.g: me.

I just demonstrated to you that no amount of obfuscation is going to protect your work from an LLM -- Not whilst there's still humans behind the tools driving them.

[flagged]

We've asked you many times to stop breaking the site guidelines and you've continued to do it.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this properly going forward, we'd appreciate it.

The first paragraph of the link explains the motivation.

Not all humans have the will or ability to help an LLM get around the anti-LLM features.

I think this language is fascinating, but immediately reached a similar conclusion: it might trip up an LLM consuming the text directly but once an interpreter/compiler/decompiler has been written for the language it's trivial for an agent to consume these programs and produce them.

Now on the other hand, as a class of techniques - "anti-LLM languages" - it might be a useful method of emitting code that some agents with the correct tools can consume and others cannot, by design. Evolving such techniques with differing specifications might make for an interesting line of investigation.

Indeed, and an interpreter has been written[1]. As part of the benchmarks, in some cases the models receive a binary of the interpreter and indeed some of them attempt to reverse engineer it. So that already helps the models a bunch.

I do think this will also eventually make it into the training data, but that will in itself be interesting to see. It's also possible for KillSwitch to evolve and gain/remove features over time to constantly evade the LLMs.

1 - https://github.com/dom96/KillSwitch

Reply on news.ycombinator.com