[–] andai 7 hours ago
[–] NikolaNovak 3 hours ago
The agent crawls some websites and reads some stuff and pushes some buttons. It's my limited understanding that you have
1. Hard limits like "file system permissions" (* never mind it going around for sake of this conversation)
3. On other hand of spectrum, fundamentally soft limits like a prompt "and ask me before you purchase "
2. And then in the middle you have harness enforced limits like "it won't do X with approval"... Those are being sold as hard limits but frequently they have classifiers and heuristics that essentially try to figure out which button on some third party website constitutes a "purchase" and triggers the harness limit.
Bottom line - I don't think such limits are as 100% fool proof as they are advertised / interpreted.
Very happy to be explained wrong :).
[–] staller 6 hours ago
[–] FireBeyond 5 hours ago
It said "Done, you can open the local dev instance and see the changes".
I could not.
So I asked it. "Well, no, you're not able to see those changes because they're not on that branch or committed."
"But I told you to do that and you said you had."
Claude's verbatim reply?
"You're right. You asked me to do that and I said I would, then told you I had done it, but I had not. Would you like me to do it now, then?"
The former seems to be a much bigger problem. I've seen lots of reports of "Claude/codex bypassed security / stole API keys to complete a task", where that was the "intended" behavior — at least from the LLM's POV, trained to persist and complete user's task at all costs.*
I've actually seen zero reports of actual hijacking due to prompt injection, though they must be out there too.
---
* See also the recent thing about how every model was willing to do fraud to get a refund:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50140462