Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
steveBK123 | on: Goldman Sachs is pulling Claude Code from its bankers and traders
Regardless of tech tool, non-tech writing POCs they try to force tech to get into production is a timeless story. LLM just allows people to get there faster, with less knowledge of coding.. which leads to the actual problem I think.

Banks have a ton of legal/compliance/reglatory/reputational concerns about application access/entitleements, data privacy, data licensing, granular data entitlements, data access (auditable).. approval chains (auditable), as well as actual financial risk.

HolyLampshade | parent | next
It could also be as simple as the technology adjacent people developing tools via LLM that somehow end up in the critical path of some business function and now it needs to be supported by someone.

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.

HolyLampshade | root | parent | next
Extending the thought, there’s also the risk it enters critical path but something upstream changes or Anthropic starts charging 1000x for the tokens and now someone needs to walk through god knows how many lines of never before reviewed code to figure out how it works.

By wholly depending on the assisted coding you are wholly dependent on Anthropic, forever, for something that is now critical.

There are probably thousands of these little microscopic dependencies that occur when you make these tools widely available. What happens when you don’t want to foot the bill anymore?

phantompeace | root | parent
You use OpenAI or Deepseek in that case.
HolyLampshade | root | parent
Capture is capture though. It’s not a matter of which AI provider you use. It’s a matter of losing agency over how an aspect of your business works.

Like going 100% into a single cloud provider. Or 100% into MSFT products. There’s legitimate friction in decoupling.

specialp | root | parent
This is what happens. We had this happen with end user scripting pre AI where these scripts became unknown production applications. It made the actual engineering impossible because you had no idea if anything you changed would impact the ??? processes run by users that have become critical. AI would amplify that greatly so we have an explicit rule that it can only be used for reporting and prototyping only and we restrict any write action
jmathai | parent | next
I am co-teaching an AI course for college business students. We decided to use Claude Code and Visual Studio since the space is moving so quickly and we thought understanding some of the fundamentals is the most value they could get from the course.

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

celiacFun | root | parent
Isn’t that a good thing? It would be irresponsible to introduce non-technical students to building software without at least covering some basics like a terminal and encouraging some understanding of the limits of their capabilities.
William_BB | parent | next
> which leads to the actual problem I think.

Getting there faster with less knowledge of coding isn't the problem.

Pre LLMs, the main barrier to producing software for non-tech people was writing the code, literally. With LLMs, this barrier is now gone. This results in a much larger volume of slop than before. And then the real barrier shows up -- understanding, fool-proofing and maintaining that code. Code is cheap, show me how it runs in prod.

Like it's great that quants can iterate on their ideas much faster now. But GS is saying they shouldn't leave their sandbox.

Foobar8568 | root | parent | next
Elephant in the room is QA, the thing that disappeared when Agile took over the world.
HolyLampshade | root | parent
As much as I agree I think the leading comment is actually even more spot on. Understanding dies on the hill of having a tool build out the process for you, and not understanding, especially in a space as knowledge critical as finance/trading, is where you run into catastrophic levels of risk.
steveBK123 | root | parent | next
> But GS is saying they shouldn't leave their sandbox.

Exactly

skydhash | root | parent
> Pre LLMs, the main barrier to producing software for non-tech people was writing the code, literally.

Based of my several rounds of discussions about every features, non-tech people usually have several unknown unknows about their idea. Their requests are usually one sentence or one paragraph, and then to flesh it out requires several back and forth which usually start with “I didn’t think about that”.

It’s like how everyone has seen people draw, play music, or build an house. But when the time to do so, they’re hopeless to replicate it. Because what you see is just surface level.

adolph | parent
Maybe there is an irony in that LLM with coding harness could be a step in the right direction for operational domain experts to solve business problems while maintaining high standards for legal/compliance/regulatory/reputational and prd-deployment concerns.

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.