logoalt Hacker News

ethbr1yesterday at 3:23 PM1 replyview on HN

Going from "build and running executables" to that needing to be done on the same system and under control of the LLM is a large leap.

Separation of duties and ephemerality are well-known security mechanisms that many harnesses jump right over in the pursuit of easier UX.

Mingling permissions + trusting vibe-coded security boundaries in the harness itself (developed by folks whose appetite for risk would make even an 00s front-end developer blush) is rolling a handful of dice all at once.

But fundamentally, this is a disagreement between two risk appetites who will never agree: {it works most of the time} vs {it's guaranteed to never fail}


Replies

qarl2yesterday at 4:22 PM

It does not need to be on the same system - but that is currently how it is done by nearly everyone in the field because it seems to be the most effective way. Which is why coding harnesses build AND execute code.

I'm not sure why you disbelieve agents can do "guaranteed to never fail". Proving correctness is one of their strengths. Proofs in general, in fact, much much better than the typical human coder.