Hacker News Reader

Comment by post-it | Hacker News Reader

That's the only safe way to use any software that you haven't thoroughly reviewed. But that's not how I use any software.

View on HN

You could in theory fully review Claude Code.

But even that wouldn't be enough because LLMs are nondeterministic, and these kinds of issues are the inevitable results.

Only a mechanical, deterministic failsafe can protect you from it.

> You could in theory fully review Claude Code.

Can you point me to the CC source code?

The CC source code leak was contained many months ago. But Claude is perfectly happy to decompile its own code if you ask the right way. It'll even patch the binary for you.

Regardless, It's kinda silly to keep the harness code hidden. There aren't any valuable secrets in there.

But there are rules & procedures to follow, so...

Well then I have to use Claude before being able to review the source? Bit of a chicken and egg situation.

I also have to trust its “decompilation” is accurate.

Or use a different llm or do it yourself manually.

You're absolutely right! There's no way around this problem — and no amount of creative thought could ever solve it.

All hail the agent!

Its Vibe Coding land here...you dont look at the code....

I spent a long time as a younger man running general software inside ephemeral VMs. The UX was terrible, but I had no fears about browser vulnerabilities ruining my day. Ephemeral is hard, and the UX is still poor, but I did try it again a month or two back, and it's not impossible.

But now I am doing all my software development back inside ephemeral VMs, AI or otherwise - the UX there is much better, I significantly mitigate supply-chain attack risks, and agents are already constrained to a secret-less, low privilege environment, should I use them. There's a significantly higher likelihood of rogue software in third party dependency trees than there is in a small subset of programs you regularly use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com