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
> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch

No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert.

As an offline database of Google-tier knowledge, LLM's are useful. Though current LLM tech is half-baked, we need:

a) Cheap commodity hardware for running your own models locally. (And by "locally" I mean separate dedicated devices, not something that fights over your desktop's or laptop's resources.)

b) Standard bulletproof ways to fine-tune models on your own data. (Inference is already there mostly with things like llama.cpp, finetuning isn't.)

>>otabde+uj2
> No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert

How could that possibly be true!? Seems like it'd be the same as suggesting being constrained to analog writing utensils wouldn't bottleneck the process of publishing a book or research paper. At the very least such a statement implies that people with ADHD can't be experts.

>>brails+jv2
Now you are just being silly with your comparisons. There is no analogy between those things: * the difference between handwritting a book and typing is the extreme pain you would feel in your hands versus being able to write more in the same time without it * the difference between typing and using your voice could be of a similar magnitude for someone with problems in their hands * the difference between any of those writing methods and using an AI to do it for you, is that you are abstracting YOURSELF from the equation, not the method of writing. It's not analogous, not even from a mountain of distance far. You are not less "bottlenecked" because you don't need to write the thing yourself, you are just not producing it at all, it's more analogous to you guiding the hands of another person with vague instructions, using of their own expressivity to make your book for you, then claiming it was you who wrote it. It's not a bottleneck question, it was never a bottleneck question, and this is the case because code IS the writing, it IS the problem solving area where you need to put your mind to work, not writing a prompt, but coding in a specific and well defined formal syntax.