6 ms·

The default is set for the marginal new user, which at this point is probably not someone like you (who benefits a lot from manual mode) -- it's someone who's m

The default is set for the marginal new user, which at this point is probably not someone like you (who benefits a lot from manual mode) -- it's someone who's more "code-naive" and might get anxious about approving random bash script commands they don't recognize. Safely getting the user from prompt --> first vibe-coded app is the "user journey" now, and since auto mode seems pretty good at not letting Claude rm -rf'ing the home directory, this is 100% the right business move. For people who know what they're doing (like you), manual mode is just a shift-tab away

mcmcmc 1mo ago
> it's someone who's more "code-naive" and might get anxious about approving random bash script commands they don't recognize. Maybe they should trust their instinct and not mess with things they don’t care to understand
- natpalmer1776 1mo ago
  It’s a brave new world. I recall hearing similar sentiments from linux sysadmins regarding cloud infrastructure. In many respects they were and continue to be correct. In other respects, the world doesn’t care about the loss in understanding as long as things work “well enough” for the cogs of society to keep turning. For those who do care (and have the aptitude) to understand things deeper there is always work to be had when “well enough” stops being good enough and someone has to unravel the “RDS queries are taking too long” problems that crop up as a result.
  - Schlagbohrer 1mo ago
    These progressively higher levels of abstraction are how everything has moved and will move in science and human technology. There aren't enough hours in the day nor years in the human lifespan to gain a deep understanding of every single level below us. Rather we build on the abstracted API layer beneath us, and those who come after will build on top of us using a simplified abstraction to hide the tangled mess we had to make.
  - TZubiri 1mo ago
    > In many respects they were and continue to be correct Lots of space for on-prem, it's not a cloud only world. See Oxide, Europe sovereignity, military and state use cases..
- Certhas 1mo ago
  I am using many many many things that I don't understand. Cars, public transport, etc... I review and test the end product, not every tiny step along the way. If the LLM uses some command line tools I have never heard of to create a model I can verify, why should I learn a tool that is completely irrelevant to my core expertise?
  - jason1cho 1mo ago
    Many many people care more than the end product, for example whether a shirt is made of cotton with the forced labor, carbon emissions of public transport, etc. In terms of engineering software, you care the cost. An intelligent agent may try to read unnecessary files and it's time to stop it to save tokens and avoid polluting the context.
    - usef- 1mo ago
      He didn't advocate for being completely blind in every way. You might care about working conditions without understanding how the textiles, dyes or cotton production works. These non-programmers probably shouldnt use computers at all, right, since they don't understand them?
    - user43928 1mo ago
      I doubt that it is more efficient for someone to routinely watch every line of output or stop to review terminal commands, rather than waiting for the turn to complete. It is a broader debate about agentic AI, and whether one should relinquish control to the tool rather than aim for full understanding of every action taken. The people arguing for a hands-on, fully in control approach are losing ground by the week, in my opinion.
      - mcmcmc 1mo ago
        It’s definitely on the high friction side of the usability/security tradeoff, I just think auto modes like this are as liability-inducing as handing a script kiddie intern full admin on your production environment The real answer is somewhere in the middle and is probably a mix of traditional AV/EDR and AI QA judges that mitigate risk of running more or less random arbitrary code and auto approve based on configured detection rules and your personal risk tolerance. Would it suck to stick an EDR sensor in every code execution environment spun up for an agent to run a python script… yes. It would also suck if you were responsible for hacking a company without knowing about it because you didn’t watch what your AI was doing
- 9dev 1mo ago
  What an awful position to take. Tech used to be about becoming more accessible to people! Now we have a magical assistant to make computers do what you want with natural language, and your desire is gate keeping that so only programmers can use it to write software for themselves?
  - TZubiri 1mo ago
    >so only programmers can use it to write software for themselves? Yes? The idea of an assistant that can use natural language is nice! But why would you MAKE software with it, it IS software, just do the thing you want to do! If you want to make an app, be prepared to jump hoops because this is no longer about YOU the user, it's about OTHER users. The idea of making personal single user software is a fantasy, an oxymoron, you MAKE software? there's the presumption that it will be used for other people, otherwise you'd be USING software. There's a counter and you are at either one side or the other. It's the difference between making yourself a sandwich vs making a pot pie vs making chicken nuggets. One has the form factor for individual consumption and the other has the form factor for a social gathering, and the latter is an industrial form factor. Maybe if there were a magic microwave that created random foods from thin air, people would create chicken nuggets or pot pies for themselves, but it's a vestigial maladaptation that will soon dissapear. Any reasonably designed product would try to provide different UX for industrial and individual users. The magic microwave that makes chicken nuggets better not be the same one that an actual factory is using. It's not a matter of cutting the middleman and revolutionizing wealth distribution from those fat chicken-nugget cats, it's about having two distinct products for two distinct usecases. Tl;dr: Personal and industrial usecases are different, and if I'm in the industry, I don't want to use (the same product that end-users are using) to build products. What a clusterfuck.
    - retsibsi 1mo ago
      > The idea of making personal single user software is a fantasy, an oxymoron, you MAKE software? there's the presumption that it will be used for other people, otherwise you'd be USING software. It definitely isn't. I've done it (successfully) a few times. > The idea of an assistant that can use natural language is nice! But why would you MAKE software with it, it IS software, just do the thing you want to do! This makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that instead of using an LLM to make, say, an ebook reader or crossword app that meets my personal needs, I should invoke an LLM every time I want to read a book or do a crossword? That feels like a strawman, but I can't work out what else you might be arguing here.
lukan 1mo ago
I am actually curious, how much non programmers use claude now. I know just one and she really does not know much about computers, I suppose their numbers will grow (but I doubt most get much value out of it).
- jason1cho 1mo ago
  I think a lot of non programmers use Claude. I mean if you don't care code, you are essentially a product manager who gives instructions to your programmers (whether humans or intelligent agents). Then if you use the created product, you are at best a test engineer if not just an ordinary user. I think in the era of AI, people get tools they want in an expensive way. Rather than finding an existing tool, they ask an intelligent agent to parrot one, which guarantees no safety, security, efficiency, and accuracy. Yet, being able to use Claude makes them feel smart and productive (in parroting wheels).
vikramkr 1mo ago
I don't think the marginal new user is anxious about approving messages - I think they're quickly annoyed by permissions prompt they don't understand and quickly get in the habit of approving everything or figuring out how to set bypass permissions on

mcmcmc 1mo ago

> it's someone who's more "code-naive" and might get anxious about approving random bash script commands they don't recognize. Maybe they should trust their instinct and not mess with things they don’t care to understand

natpalmer1776 1mo ago
It’s a brave new world. I recall hearing similar sentiments from linux sysadmins regarding cloud infrastructure. In many respects they were and continue to be correct. In other respects, the world doesn’t care about the loss in understanding as long as things work “well enough” for the cogs of society to keep turning. For those who do care (and have the aptitude) to understand things deeper there is always work to be had when “well enough” stops being good enough and someone has to unravel the “RDS queries are taking too long” problems that crop up as a result.
- Schlagbohrer 1mo ago
  These progressively higher levels of abstraction are how everything has moved and will move in science and human technology. There aren't enough hours in the day nor years in the human lifespan to gain a deep understanding of every single level below us. Rather we build on the abstracted API layer beneath us, and those who come after will build on top of us using a simplified abstraction to hide the tangled mess we had to make.
- TZubiri 1mo ago
  > In many respects they were and continue to be correct Lots of space for on-prem, it's not a cloud only world. See Oxide, Europe sovereignity, military and state use cases..
Certhas 1mo ago
I am using many many many things that I don't understand. Cars, public transport, etc... I review and test the end product, not every tiny step along the way. If the LLM uses some command line tools I have never heard of to create a model I can verify, why should I learn a tool that is completely irrelevant to my core expertise?
- jason1cho 1mo ago
  Many many people care more than the end product, for example whether a shirt is made of cotton with the forced labor, carbon emissions of public transport, etc. In terms of engineering software, you care the cost. An intelligent agent may try to read unnecessary files and it's time to stop it to save tokens and avoid polluting the context.
  - usef- 1mo ago
    He didn't advocate for being completely blind in every way. You might care about working conditions without understanding how the textiles, dyes or cotton production works. These non-programmers probably shouldnt use computers at all, right, since they don't understand them?
  - user43928 1mo ago
    I doubt that it is more efficient for someone to routinely watch every line of output or stop to review terminal commands, rather than waiting for the turn to complete. It is a broader debate about agentic AI, and whether one should relinquish control to the tool rather than aim for full understanding of every action taken. The people arguing for a hands-on, fully in control approach are losing ground by the week, in my opinion.
    - mcmcmc 1mo ago
      It’s definitely on the high friction side of the usability/security tradeoff, I just think auto modes like this are as liability-inducing as handing a script kiddie intern full admin on your production environment The real answer is somewhere in the middle and is probably a mix of traditional AV/EDR and AI QA judges that mitigate risk of running more or less random arbitrary code and auto approve based on configured detection rules and your personal risk tolerance. Would it suck to stick an EDR sensor in every code execution environment spun up for an agent to run a python script… yes. It would also suck if you were responsible for hacking a company without knowing about it because you didn’t watch what your AI was doing
9dev 1mo ago
What an awful position to take. Tech used to be about becoming more accessible to people! Now we have a magical assistant to make computers do what you want with natural language, and your desire is gate keeping that so only programmers can use it to write software for themselves?
- TZubiri 1mo ago
  >so only programmers can use it to write software for themselves? Yes? The idea of an assistant that can use natural language is nice! But why would you MAKE software with it, it IS software, just do the thing you want to do! If you want to make an app, be prepared to jump hoops because this is no longer about YOU the user, it's about OTHER users. The idea of making personal single user software is a fantasy, an oxymoron, you MAKE software? there's the presumption that it will be used for other people, otherwise you'd be USING software. There's a counter and you are at either one side or the other. It's the difference between making yourself a sandwich vs making a pot pie vs making chicken nuggets. One has the form factor for individual consumption and the other has the form factor for a social gathering, and the latter is an industrial form factor. Maybe if there were a magic microwave that created random foods from thin air, people would create chicken nuggets or pot pies for themselves, but it's a vestigial maladaptation that will soon dissapear. Any reasonably designed product would try to provide different UX for industrial and individual users. The magic microwave that makes chicken nuggets better not be the same one that an actual factory is using. It's not a matter of cutting the middleman and revolutionizing wealth distribution from those fat chicken-nugget cats, it's about having two distinct products for two distinct usecases. Tl;dr: Personal and industrial usecases are different, and if I'm in the industry, I don't want to use (the same product that end-users are using) to build products. What a clusterfuck.
  - retsibsi 1mo ago
    > The idea of making personal single user software is a fantasy, an oxymoron, you MAKE software? there's the presumption that it will be used for other people, otherwise you'd be USING software. It definitely isn't. I've done it (successfully) a few times. > The idea of an assistant that can use natural language is nice! But why would you MAKE software with it, it IS software, just do the thing you want to do! This makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that instead of using an LLM to make, say, an ebook reader or crossword app that meets my personal needs, I should invoke an LLM every time I want to read a book or do a crossword? That feels like a strawman, but I can't work out what else you might be arguing here.

lukan 1mo ago

I am actually curious, how much non programmers use claude now. I know just one and she really does not know much about computers, I suppose their numbers will grow (but I doubt most get much value out of it).

jason1cho 1mo ago
I think a lot of non programmers use Claude. I mean if you don't care code, you are essentially a product manager who gives instructions to your programmers (whether humans or intelligent agents). Then if you use the created product, you are at best a test engineer if not just an ordinary user. I think in the era of AI, people get tools they want in an expensive way. Rather than finding an existing tool, they ask an intelligent agent to parrot one, which guarantees no safety, security, efficiency, and accuracy. Yet, being able to use Claude makes them feel smart and productive (in parroting wheels).

vikramkr 1mo ago

I don't think the marginal new user is anxious about approving messages - I think they're quickly annoyed by permissions prompt they don't understand and quickly get in the habit of approving everything or figuring out how to set bypass permissions on