| ▲ | post-it a day ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | codebje 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [deleted] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||