4 ms·
Given our spectacular inability to make "regular" programs secure in the absence of all that fuzziness, I don't know if it's a good idea.
by lou1306 1y ago
Given our spectacular inability to make "regular" programs secure in the absence of all that fuzziness, I don't know if it's a good idea.
- koakuma-chan 1y ago> Given our spectacular inability to make "regular" programs secure in the absence of all that fuzziness "our" - *base users? I only hear about *base apps shipping tokens in client code or not having auth checks on the server, or whatever
- lou1306 1y agoI just meant very generally that we (humans) are still struggling to make regular programs secure, we built decades worth of infrastructures (langages, protocols, networks) where security was simply not a concern and we are still reckoning with that. Jumping head first into an entire new "paradigm" (for lack of a better word) where you can bend a clueless, yet powerful servant to do your evil bidding sounds like a recipe for... interesting times.
- docsaintly 1y agoWe are talking about binary computers here, there is no such thing as a "fuzzy" input or a "fuzzy" output. The fact is that these MCPs are allowed to bypass all existing and well-functioning security barriers, and we cross our fingers and hope they won't be manipulated into giving more information than the previous security barriers would have allowed. It's a bad idea that people are running with due to the hype.