zlacker

>>gregor+(OP)
The commits are revealing.

Look at this one:

> Ask Claude to remove the "backup" encryption key. Clearly it is still important to security-review Claude's code!

> prompt: I noticed you are storing a "backup" of the encryption key as `encryptionKeyJwk`. Doesn't this backup defeat the end-to-end encryption, because the key is available in the grant record without needing any token to unwrap it?

I don’t think a non-expert would even know what this means, let alone spot the issue and direct the model to fix it.

>>rienbd+s22
That is how LLM:s should be used today. An expert prompts it and checks the code. Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. Just the other day I was working on a prototype and let claude write code for a auth flow. Everything was good until the last step where it was just sending the user id as a string with the valid token. So if you got a valid token you could just pass in any user id and become that user. Still saved me a lot of time vs doing it from scratch.

>>victor+Ng2
I really don't agree with the idea that expert time would just be spent typing, and I'd be really surprised if that's the common sentiment around here.

An expert reasons, plans ahead, thinks and reasons a little bit more before even thinking about writing code.

If you are measuring productivity by lines of code per hour then you don't understand what being a dev is.

>>0point+To2
> I really don't agree with the idea that expert time would just be spent typing, and I'd be really surprised if that's the common sentiment around here.

They didn't suggest that at all, they merely suggested that the component of the expert's work that would otherwise be spent typing can be saved, while the rest of their utility comes from intense scrutiny, problem solving, decision making about what to build and why, and everything else that comes from experience and domain understanding.

>>brails+yu2
It's not just time spent typing. Figuring out what needs to be typed can be both draining and time consuming. It's often (but not always) much easier to review someone else's solution to the problem than it is to solve it from scratch on your own.

Oddly enough security critical flows are likely to be one of the few exceptions because catching subtle reasoning errors that won't trip any unit tests when reviewing code that you didn't write is extremely difficult.

>>fc417f+3V2
The problem is, building something IS the destination. At least the first 5-10 times. Building and fixing along the way is what builds lasting knowledge for most people.