YHK - yet another hacker news clone

Sounds like the web platform.

I dunno if rebellion is the right framing. Maybe pulling the organization toward their side instead. Ultimate the “bankers” at an investment company decide where the company is going, after all. Grabbing your own steering wheel isn’t rebellion.

Or just the Claude app with local execution disabled by org policy, if that’s a thing.

There are things simple building blocks don't prevent in the event of nefarious or stupid behavior.

Imagine a nefarious banker creates an app that lets him talk to a trader on the other side of the "Chinese wall" about M&A deal flow without getting caught because they are avoiding monitored channels like email, slack, phone, zoom.

Imagine an idiot writes an app that scans his email and summarizes client information he is privy to and writes it to some database that his app then serves up to others on the trading desk. He is unaware that entitlements exist, and by giving others access to his new app he has broken them. Btw summarizing email is a HUGE use case across non-technical users in finance that they are very excited about.

All this is just counter productive and drowns everyone is slop.

> If the issue is security, a much more interesting problem for the engineering team to do is design the programming environment for the bankers so they cannot hurt themselves.

Interesting take but it doesn't compute. When engineering team teams design programming environments so that people can't hurt themselves they will be locked into a "take it or leave it" set of environments.

Also, you do know security isn't just about engineering, it is also about data right?

How do you suppose it works when bankers who have day to day access to sensitive data as part of their job - upload it to AI? What to do then? Restrict data access?

> rather than a fixed set of discreet programs "take it or leave it".

This part always amuses me. AI boosters seem to think everyone hosting their own bespoke app is the next big thing. But who manages that? Banks are not tech giants. Most engineering teams don't bring in money and headcounts are strictly managed. As the article says:

> "He told Bloomberg that traders and bankers had built tools with AI and passed them to the firm's engineers, of whom there are about 12,000, to be improved."

So, how does engineering with limited staff design a safe environment and improve 12k apps. I am sure Goldman's management wont be thrilled about increasing engineering headcount to match these expectations.

I never like these kinds of statements because it makes so AI can’t ever be critiqued. You can always go “well that’s a bad engineer.”

1.https://www.the-independent.com/tech/chatgpt-ai-cancer-cure-...

This hardly makes sense to me. Claude Code is an excellent tool for running your environment and augmenting your productivity. Most traders are sharp folks who could use CC to great effect I am sure. I'd be super annoyed.

The details are very different, but variations on this theme have played out for a long time. I have seen fixed income instrument modeling systems 20 years ago that allowed Traders to put in limited C++ code to define new exotic instruments.

At least that stuff had guardrails around it.

I work in healthcare-adjacent tech. You can use Claude with HIPAA/PHI. You need to sign a BAA (Business Associate Agreement). It dictates how Anthropic may use and how they must safeguard the PHI (Private Health Information), including not training on it.

I assure you that Claude and other LLMs are used extensively in healthcare, with PHI access, just about everywhere.

Don't be naive. Don't be alarmist.

If anything, LLM use under these conditions is far more safe than the way most people use LLMs. Engineers who aren't under any regulatory regime like HIPAA are using LLMs without the BAA safeguards, exposing personal data directly to the insecure, shared models, which are now training on all the personal data that's being fed into them. People think their communication with LLMs is private and isolated, but without the BAAs in use by companies under compliance regimes, it's not isolated.

Is this typical behavior with LLMs not just Claude, but you can discourage from doing so by explicitly stating not to use tool or only use knowledge either in the system prompt or user prompt.

LLMs are trained to use tool if they can't solve a problem rather than guessing/hallucinating.

A dumb example is asking to count. As the range grow it'll attempt to write a script or use commands like seq to generate the numbers.

If it's some other corpo-acronym, I would hope you would define the term before unleashing it on us normies.

I’ve seen the same happen with insane spreadsheets.

As empowering as something like Claude code can be, leaving development to developers means the output is inherently supported by the organization long term.

User scripts that turn into applications that need production support are often consequential and business-differentiating since they do the things that can't be bought off the shelf and effectively encode tacit knowledge.

It was the right choice. But many of the rough edges of the terminal do surface and confuse non technical people.

I don't get how this is such a common issue. Are companies paying API rates for devs? The $20/mo plan pretty much works fine for most people at my company

I'm guessing that + probably the absence of any deployment infrastructure for the finance people to be forced to use made Goldman Sachs' eyes widen and pull the plug immediately before something blows up (if it hasn't already internally).

I also wonder if a lack of diligence with Claude Code (or any LLM tool for that matter) resulted in private information getting leaked, and that feedback is just now getting back to them.

In terms of the big picture of the industry and the AI bubble though, yeah this isn't too big of a deal.