Hacker News

"Shop jigs" is a great way to put it. I think a lot of software has gone from being made for general use to extremely individualised use. Before the Age of AI, it took so much human effort to write something that solved your problem that you might often go the extra mile so that others could re-use it. Now, it takes almost no effort, so the software stays ungeneralised. Some of the incentive has changed, I think. Most of the time I no longer share the things I've been building[0] because, for one thing they simply couldn't possibly have any benefit for others, and if they need something like it, they can build exactly the thing they want instead of having to extend or modify my thing. Like a jig!

0: https://redfloatplane.lol/blog/17-why-share/ (and related posts, I guess)

This is exactly it.

I've said many times that I believe "using the computer will transparently involve having it write and run code for you" (and if you're not technical you won't even know it!). What you're saying goes in that direction as well.

I feel that it's often better for us to create purpose-built tools for our lives, and with every model release, the complexity of those tools grows.

These are really personal tools: they solve a problem that other people might have, but are very tied to your own specific way of working, and would be hard to explain or adapt to someone else. So: shop jigs.

I have about 10 custom scripts and programs that are like this -- I haven't felt like this since college! Back then I had all the time in the world to customize my setup...now I have agents!

In a way, I want to show this to all my friends, but whenever I mentally trace how that would go, I realize they wouldn't really understand a bunch of the quirks they have, because they are _my_ quirks. They're reasonably complex pieces of tech that solve my problems very well, which are themselves particular versions of broader problems, and which I (at least for now) have no interest in supporting.

It's so clear we're heading in this direction, and yet so many people still believe code will be for the elites. Maybe production-code...As for the rest, I think soon your mom and dad are going to have their computer running code it wrote to serve them. Security-wise it's scary, but it's exciting to think about!

Sure it’s possible for anyone to build a harness if they had the inclination, but most people don’t have the inclination to do that.

And even if you did… I spent months refining AI workflows that were just obsoleted by ultracode.

I’ve been looking for a way to articulate this shift, and your analogy nails it. The value of libraries and infrastructure components in software engineering is eroding fast.

I am sure that in many organizations, teams responsible for this sort of work have less and less users coming to them.

100% concur and if you dig into any of these tools they are all frameworks and wrappers with prompt injections

In general this is the way I see open source going.

We won't reuse open source libraries as libraries we import, but as design inspiration for the bespoke tools we make.

It's too cheap to make your own stuff and too expensive to be stuck with someone else primitives.

But grounding AI Coding in existing tools is incredibly powerful.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

It's becoming apparent that it requires more tokens to secure code than it does to write it

May even be an order of magnitude more

I think that the cost of Opus is already prohibitively expensive, so not sure how that would compare to Mythos. Check this calculator- it shows that a company with 100 devs can hit ~2.5M cost on tokens annually, which is wild! https://ai-cost-calculator.arnica.io

Claude workflows in ultra code mode works in a very similar fashion and it consumes a moderate amount of the session usage limit, depending on the complexity of the task. With the API it would probably get expensive quickly though

We actually created a calculator to estimate scanning costs (including whether you do this continuously or not) https://ai-cost-calculator.arnica.io

It's an estimate, so it might be wrong, but it gives the ballpark based on our experience. Happy to hear everyone's feedback.

If you compare to their managed service, that estimate is likely 1/10th expectation, depending on codebase.

But even this larger number, in turn, can be about 1/10th the cost of a formal engagement to discover the type of findings it seems to be going for: things that do not show up from PR reviews or even /security-review without the pre-work steps in the open-source framework guided by an expert. That's not counting the time and delay to figure out how to do that engagement.

Bluntly: if it matters, while this is a month's vibing budget for a single scan, it is also "pennies on the dollar" dirt cheap.

At the same time, its findings still need an expert. Its suggestions may be helpful, they may be actively harmful, depends on the prework quality.

Recommendation to IT department heads: spend a couple grand on this, use the scare page to rustle up the budget to build a relationship with a red team that can find, triage, help remediate if needed, and train your in-house team to be "security minded".

Just another example of an overextension of technology in a scenario where applying a proper harness would suffice.

Reminiscent of the early days of tax automation where importing a W2 cost hundreds of dollars until people realized typing in 6 boxes worth of data was easy and paying the automation fee ate up their entire tax return.

I mean, you don't need to run it all the time, right? You do it once over your entire existing codebase to start and then once over the diff in your CI/CD pipeline when you make a new change. I'm sure it's not literally that simple but I doubt these need to churn 24/7/365 either.

> Maybe next they can sell something to find the bugs in the security scanner ?

So, tokens are used to produce sloppy code, and then this thing uses more tokens to fix vulnerabilities in the slop ? Whats not to like in this business model ? Similar to microsoft's. Create an OS which is vulnerable, and then enable business models for anti-virus software. Everyone wins.

More seriously, linters are turned off in ci because the amount of time spent chasing false-positives is prohibitive.

Why isn't Claude maintaining it?

This one is and should be adapted to every frozen model ASAP.

https://github.com/space-bacon/SRT

Significantly improve every frozen model overnight. LFG.

> The same way as someone selling an expensive course in the stock market is signaling that they have more to gain by selling the course rather than

Or they want to diversify

> If AI tokens were so magical in creating new value in developing software applications generally, they wouldn't be selling tokens directly.

That requires to build and sell a whole product they have little experience with, competing with their own customers. Not a great place for an AI vendor still trying to establish itself. It’s a lot of distraction, when you already have a lot to deal with the existing business. And strategically not too valuable

> They'd hoard the tokens are use them to dominate SaaS software in any industry they want.

I don't understand this argument. I've ran and sold a semi-successful SaaS. The exhausting and frustrating parts are all the things an LLM cannot help you with. Coding the product is not the bottleneck or what grants you success.

> If AI tokens were so magical in creating new value in developing software applications generally, they wouldn't be selling tokens directly. They'd hoard the tokens are use them to dominate SaaS software in any industry they want.

This doesn't follow at all. Anthropic's revenue is growing 10x year over year selling tokens. Their tokens can be super magical, let them enter established industries and displace incumbents, and get 100% annual growth in those industries, and they would still be better off prioritizing selling tokens, because it's a great business.

What your argument shows is that there are limits. Their tokens are not quite powerful enough to make infinite money instantly in every area of software. Admittedly, that does seem true.

Maybe, but an alternative argument that building an ecosystem is more valuable in the long run.

We started out with many companies forbidding their employees to use remote LLMs on their source code because of security concerns. Now many companies are starting to believe that they must analyze their all their source code with remote LLMs because of security concerns. When trusting Anthropic becomes normalized, that means they can sell more services that require access to the source code.

Surprised we havent gotten an integrated "MetaSploit" AI update where it calls and messages a ton of people in a company and once it starts to find someone possibly vulnerable lets a human red teamer take over or guide it more by hand.

Isn’t this analogous to saying if farming equipment is so productive why doesn’t John Deer hoard all the tractors and do the farming themselves?

> If AI tokens were so magical in creating new value in developing software applications generally, they wouldn't be selling tokens directly.

If hardware were so magical in creating new value generally, TSMC would be designing the chips instead of selling fabrication as a service.

That is what US chip companies used to do, by the way (back when there was silicon in Silicon Valley, before they got their lunch eaten by Taiwan). If TSMC had to design all of the chips they fabricate now, they would be doing a lot less business. Conversely, if any other company that wanted to design a chip had to build their own cutting-edge fab first, NVIDIA would not exist.

They can only do that if they're a monopoly, which they're not

It seems clear that LLMs significantly change threat model math, but this observation alone does not explain how or why; the asymmetry that you’re describing is a property of pre-LLM software as well.

Defenders have context that attackers don't though.

This post is misleading and so is the GitHub org. Anthropics vs Anthropic.

If I had to guess, they'l eventually just add it into their own product and hike the prices up to cover tokens lol.

Anthropics is Anthropic's user name on GitHub

Anthropic, no s, is owned by some Australian guy.

`anthropics` is Anthropic's GitHub username.

The last time this Anthropic GitHub got posted I made a similar comment.

Seems like you are confusing crack and tar as a healthy breakfast.

Going by the issues on their repos, it's 2x features and 6x regressions of bugs that were "already fixed".

Or hacked them...