> A trading floor is a bad place for unreviewed code written by people who can't read it, and the information barrier problem would be reason enough on its own. Requiring that agent-written code come from people trained to review it is a sensible rule for a regulated business.
Jokes on them: devs are also losing the capacity to read the code. Can't mix move fast, high volume with "read code".
I dunno, I have a lot more sympathy for non-technical users writing slop than engineers. I think it's really great that more people get to "properly" use the computer, in that they experience a flexible programmable environment, rather than a fixed set of discreet programs "take it or leave it".
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.
If the issue a performance, designing great abstractions that the bankers' agents can use is "low code done right".
I hope the bankers rebel hard against this policy change!
In certain industries, compliance/lack thereof has serious consequences, so it might be more to do with that rather than punishing non-technical users just for using AI. For example, if an AI model trains on your internal financials, and someone else uses it to make a quick buck, then that's insider trading. Things like that.
There have been a lot of recent issues with LLMs finding security bugs quickly. If the issue is security, they need to design the bulletproof platform first, then give the less-technical users access to it.
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.
Yeah, I wonder if the medium term shift here is away from CC (which runs on your own machine and is super risky if you have sensitive client information) to something like Claude Managed Agents, where everything is sandboxed.
Or just the Claude app with local execution disabled by org policy, if that’s a thing.
The sensitive data problems aren't just about sandboxing. If a systems development model at Anthropic discovers a clever optimization trick based on a customer's complaints to their account team, that's a great deal that saves a lot of work. If a trading model at Goldman discovers a clever pricing trick based on a customer's complaints to their account team, that's an enormous problem, even if the underlying data is never seen by anyone who Goldman wouldn't trust to handle it responsibly.
Sure, but moving to CMA lets you enumerate the sources and assert the customer complaints are not visible to the workflows that shouldn’t have it.
The “Claude can read everything” model is great for vibe coding but not suitable for regulated industries, which require more structure.
My point is mostly that there is a middle ground that can preserve some of the wins; Claude can vibe up a CMA pipeline pretty quickly. There’s likely room for an internal platform to enforce required invariants though.
Even managed solutions are just mitigations, the "problem" is coding. Computer programs can do anything. This was gated before by knowledge, only coders could effectively write software, including malware and poor-security software. Now anybody can write software.
The corporate computer is a locked-down environment, the set of actions you can perform are limited. They ideally should be the actions you need to do your job, and nothing more. Any method of writing and executing code breaks that wide open - you can now do anything, given enough time and effort. Now the time and effort floors have fallen, too.
Claude Managed Agents might prevent the agents themselves from doing something nefarious, sure. But that was never the draw of AI. The ideal use of AI is doing the least amount of stuff with AI, and the most amount of stuff with code. Asking AI to sort my email? That's good, but writing a program to do that is better. Asking AI to do statistical analysis of my trades? Again, sure, but it's even better to write a program to do that.
The ability of bankers or traders to even create an app that others can run, without any IT review/approval process is probable a compliance issue in and of itself.
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.
>The ability of bankers or traders to even create an app that others can run, without any IT review/approval process is probable a compliance issue in and of itself.
The issue is probably an overwhelming amount of slop like PoCs, presentations on every topic, claude artifacts with 1000 pages instead if 10 liner in the chat.
All this is just counter productive and drowns everyone is slop.
> rather than a fixed set of discreet programs "take it or leave it".
> 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.
> they experience a flexible programmable environment, rather than a fixed set of discreet programs "take it or leave it".
> 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.
> If the issue a performance, designing great abstractions that the bankers' agents can use is "low code done right".
You do realize you're contradicting yourself right? To get to a state where "bankers cannot hurt themselves" or "low code [is] done right" is to end up right back at the "take it or leave it" programs.
Security was already addressed, by these "take it or leave it" programs.
Add enough abstractions on top of each other that must be adhered to or else it falls apart, and what do you get? "take it or leave it" programs.
This reminds me of the sovereign citizen movement that got really popular in 2019. The illusion of freedom feels great I'm sure. Until you realize you are entirely dependent on the existing infrastructure and the people who maintain it to enjoy the apparent freedom.
> Barclays said in October that it expects half its developers to be using Claude Code by the end of the year, and three weeks later named developers among 5,000 job cuts. Like Goldman, it is giving coding agents to engineers. Unlike Goldman, it is also using them to reduce how many engineers it employs.
It says nowhere Barclay’s is permitting them to traders, just that they are - like Goldman - permitting them to developers, who they subsequently will be firing enmasse.
> "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."
As someone who has been on the receiving end of many of these tools, I feel 'improved' is doing some heavy lifting here.
Completely overhauled to be operationally viable, perhaps.
Thrown into the dark recesses of the backlog, more likely.
I have a non technical friend who's been building apps for his (much smaller than goldman) investment bank just as an ingestion for their old pitch decks, deal documents, live deal agent that can surface tasks from emails and then work on things for the bankers. Been impressed with how seriously he's getting into CI, SDLC, etc but I don't think most management or business users are on the same page he is.
Internal guidance updated in October restricts Anthropic's Claude Code and Microsoft's GitHub to the bank's engineers
There. Now only devs can use Claude Code. That makes sense.
Has nothing to do with AI being bad. Good engineers have a mind for it. They tend to be more detailed oriented. Understands how parts connect. Understands the pros and cons of approaches. Can see when the AI does something stupid. Probably knows a better way if the AI veers off.
We don’t ask software engineers to file Goldman Sachs yearly company taxes using just AI right without any expertise right?
We don’t ask engineers to go out and do cold calls for sales right? Engineers don’t have the mind for that. They’d suck at it.
We don’t ask sales people to write programs right? Have you met a sales person? They’re the opposite of builders. They lie, take corners to close a deal. You can’t do that building a real production system.
It does make sense. But the problem is that no one wants to spend a few trillion dollars on a nice tool for devs. The investors want the magic wish-granting genie they were promised.[1]
> There. Now only devs can use Claude Code. That makes sense.
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.
I bet engineering loved traders tossing vibe-coded crap across the wall and demanding it be productionized. "It can't be hard, after all I've already written the code for you."
For decades Wall Street traders have been throwing spreadsheets over the wall at developers to be productionized.
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.
If it is just a stateless UI, then probably fine. I've converted a number of these into production apps and the gaps existed in places a non-technical person wouldn't look: the overall architecture, database schema, security, and handling of edge cases to name a few.
OK so when push came to shove, the frontier of LLMs were not trusted at Goldman Sachs. Maybe more banks to follow? Maybe other professions? The market cap for that juicy 2 trillion dollar evaluation shrinks for each one. Especially bad if the financial system itself doesn't trust the product.
My wife is an MD and I got her using Claude Code for all sorts of tasks adjacent to but not actually generating code that will be used by others. I am quite sure Claude is writing code to accomplish the tasks she asks for, but she doesn't really know or care about that. She also uses Claude for family stuff, she had Claude build us a packing list artifact that helps us pack for our family vacations, and he now manages our address book, friends birthdays, an other family administrivia.
I was using Claude Code yesterday for iterating with Claude Design. At some point it got faster and started producing screenshot PNGs of the canvas locally. I asked it what was up and it said that it wrote a local renderer to simulate the Claude canvas runtime.
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.
To me it’s the phrasing “I got her using Claude code”. Maybe that means “I helped her set up access through her employer approved AI account” but it’s not exactly that common for such access to be set up by your husband. It just as plausibly means “she’s using the same personal account she’s using for the family tasks I also mentioned”. I don’t see that concern as naive so much as in tune with the way people frequently use tech.
Thank you, I am taken aback by the crazy reaction here. People assume doctors are some sort of tech illiterate luddites who would be throwing around PII left and right if they weren't restrained by us smart programmers?
She takes HIPAA very seriously, and yes she got Claude Code access through her workplace. I did not set up my personal CC account on her work computer and there is no way she would let me (or her corporate controls even if she did...)
> Claude is writing code to accomplish the tasks she asks for
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just on another thread today or yesterday we have a Claude code developer saying “permissions are old hat”… so not shocking that a business with real infosec concerns would dial back on the product.
The most interesting part of this announcement is the timing. GS is leading Anthropic's IPO, what motivated them to announce this a few weeks before trading starts?
At a large bank like this, the people responsible for cybersecurity have a completely separate reporting chain and incentives than the ibanking side. If there was a security risk identified, it'd be completely inappropriate to wait a few weeks.
Tired of this kind of discussion here. It's so insubstantial. Do you have an actual point to make? I'm sure everyone here is aware that an investment bank the size of GS has been involved in scandal.
Large banks are far more conservative about these risks than the media portrays. Reputation and regulation are huge, if not existential, risks, and the senior management treats it this way.
This wasn't announced, it was an internal leak reported by Bloomberg. Perhaps they should have known it would leak, but there doesn't seem to be any grand strategy.
Goldman wants to lead the IPO, and have a successful IPO, because Anthropic and Anthropics investors will give Goldman more business if it does that. However, if Anthropic is overvaluing itself then Goldman may not be filling the book on the offer. This story may drive down the value that investors give to Goldman when it does its research, enabling a lower price on the IPO which will then generate more institutional interest and make the IPO a success.
At our org they have been clawing back Claude access because of chronic billing overages. Budgets are tight and consumption billing models are being stamped down on everywhere. Anthropic sales can not offer us any sort of normalized billing rate.
Gemini is swooping in because they offer flat consistent billing and handle overages through throttling access to higher models. For 90% of the non-engineering org the experience is near enough it makes no difference.
Honestly, for most casual business work (document analysis, data science, web scraping, basic scripting, etc) the Gemini Pro models are pretty well rounded and competent.
The problem is we now have a two tier infrastructure where some teams get Claude and some get Gemini and IT has so support both.
Claude writes code just fine, and can create shareable "artifacts" that may have full backends, databases etc.
Claude Code is a poor fit for non-engineers, it carries a lot of features, vernacular, and patterns that don't make sense to people that don't code.
So I don't think this means much? All of the coding functionality a non-engineer could want is still available, just no need to switch to a different tab in the Claude app (or even worse the terminal).
A reasoning cited in the article is that there was no source control in place for the trade tooling that Goldman Sachs finance employees were building.
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.
> The Hong Kong restriction was based on location and contract terms, and the new one is based on role. Goldman's in-house AI assistant, which uses models from several companies, is still available across the firm. The restriction applies to third-party agents that can write and run code by themselves.
I never understand why Goldman Sachs gets so much attention for their technology. Their tech stack for front office (sales, trading, quants) is utter shit -- Slang is like a closed-source poor man's Python, and SecDB (their database) has no SQL interface -- only key-value pair (like a NoSQL database). The tech stack at JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley is light years ahead. My only explanation: The Goldman PR team is unbeatable. I assume that they are sometimes paying/bribing media to run stories. To be fair, Goldman's risk taking is excellent, but their tech stack in 2026 is so mediocre.
Programmers are still allowed. It is curious that GS sued an engineer leaking source code to a competitor in 2009 when they now voluntarily give up their entire source code to Anthropic.
Apparently they finally got the memo that leaking corporate secrets for at least traders and bankers is unwise.
As the things stand, we used to have thousands of Excels with obscure macros heavy-lifting businesses. Now we have thousands of Claude artifacts doing the same. Nothing has changed, much less improved.
Wherever I've seen a pull back, it is all because of compliance or security. And that too not because of the purity of heart; but because some checkbox couldn't be ticked due to AI.
Excel macros are deterministic, don't leak BI and PII, aren't malware, and don't cost an extra engineer's salary per engineer. Comparing them to Claude is quite a disservice.
Not to forget versioned inside the document. The same spreadsheet produces same answers if it is not edited. Same can't be said from programs that can be recreated over and over again.
I'm not surprised in the slightest. Claude Code is a proprietary mess that only serves Anthropic, not any of the people using it. In a financial setting, I've had disastrous results with it. This is a good move Goldman Sachs, and I think everyone will be happy it happened.
Every company is struggling with the right balance right now. All the more impossible as the quality of the tools changes so dramatically every quarter.
202 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadAgentic engineering needs to be "all in".
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.
If the issue a performance, designing great abstractions that the bankers' agents can use is "low code done right".
I hope the bankers rebel hard against this policy change!
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.
The “Claude can read everything” model is great for vibe coding but not suitable for regulated industries, which require more structure.
My point is mostly that there is a middle ground that can preserve some of the wins; Claude can vibe up a CMA pipeline pretty quickly. There’s likely room for an internal platform to enforce required invariants though.
The corporate computer is a locked-down environment, the set of actions you can perform are limited. They ideally should be the actions you need to do your job, and nothing more. Any method of writing and executing code breaks that wide open - you can now do anything, given enough time and effort. Now the time and effort floors have fallen, too.
Claude Managed Agents might prevent the agents themselves from doing something nefarious, sure. But that was never the draw of AI. The ideal use of AI is doing the least amount of stuff with AI, and the most amount of stuff with code. Asking AI to sort my email? That's good, but writing a program to do that is better. Asking AI to do statistical analysis of my trades? Again, sure, but it's even better to write a program to do that.
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.
Now worries! Its called the "citizen developer" today! :-D https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Developer
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.
> 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.
> If the issue a performance, designing great abstractions that the bankers' agents can use is "low code done right".
You do realize you're contradicting yourself right? To get to a state where "bankers cannot hurt themselves" or "low code [is] done right" is to end up right back at the "take it or leave it" programs.
Security was already addressed, by these "take it or leave it" programs.
Add enough abstractions on top of each other that must be adhered to or else it falls apart, and what do you get? "take it or leave it" programs.
This reminds me of the sovereign citizen movement that got really popular in 2019. The illusion of freedom feels great I'm sure. Until you realize you are entirely dependent on the existing infrastructure and the people who maintain it to enjoy the apparent freedom.
Just fyi.
> Barclays said in October that it expects half its developers to be using Claude Code by the end of the year, and three weeks later named developers among 5,000 job cuts. Like Goldman, it is giving coding agents to engineers. Unlike Goldman, it is also using them to reduce how many engineers it employs.
It says nowhere Barclay’s is permitting them to traders, just that they are - like Goldman - permitting them to developers, who they subsequently will be firing enmasse.
As someone who has been on the receiving end of many of these tools, I feel 'improved' is doing some heavy lifting here.
Completely overhauled to be operationally viable, perhaps.
Thrown into the dark recesses of the backlog, more likely.
Has nothing to do with AI being bad. Good engineers have a mind for it. They tend to be more detailed oriented. Understands how parts connect. Understands the pros and cons of approaches. Can see when the AI does something stupid. Probably knows a better way if the AI veers off.
We don’t ask software engineers to file Goldman Sachs yearly company taxes using just AI right without any expertise right?
We don’t ask engineers to go out and do cold calls for sales right? Engineers don’t have the mind for that. They’d suck at it.
We don’t ask sales people to write programs right? Have you met a sales person? They’re the opposite of builders. They lie, take corners to close a deal. You can’t do that building a real production system.
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.
There’s plenty of firms out there claiming sales people can create all sorts of productivity apps…
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.
This is gold! :-))
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.
To me it’s the phrasing “I got her using Claude code”. Maybe that means “I helped her set up access through her employer approved AI account” but it’s not exactly that common for such access to be set up by your husband. It just as plausibly means “she’s using the same personal account she’s using for the family tasks I also mentioned”. I don’t see that concern as naive so much as in tune with the way people frequently use tech.
She takes HIPAA very seriously, and yes she got Claude Code access through her workplace. I did not set up my personal CC account on her work computer and there is no way she would let me (or her corporate controls even if she did...)
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.
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.
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.
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?
Like going 100% into a single cloud provider. Or 100% into MSFT products. There’s legitimate friction in decoupling.
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.
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.
Google put 'scandal' in the autocomplete choices after their name, that tell me enough.
Gemini is swooping in because they offer flat consistent billing and handle overages through throttling access to higher models. For 90% of the non-engineering org the experience is near enough it makes no difference.
The problem is we now have a two tier infrastructure where some teams get Claude and some get Gemini and IT has so support both.
Claude Code is a poor fit for non-engineers, it carries a lot of features, vernacular, and patterns that don't make sense to people that don't code.
So I don't think this means much? All of the coding functionality a non-engineer could want is still available, just no need to switch to a different tab in the Claude app (or even worse the terminal).
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.
If you need to ask, maybe you shouldn't hand it over to non tech, high risk individuals just yet.
Apparently they finally got the memo that leaking corporate secrets for at least traders and bankers is unwise.
The API prices reflected the opt out for training etc..
Wherever I've seen a pull back, it is all because of compliance or security. And that too not because of the purity of heart; but because some checkbox couldn't be ticked due to AI.
https://spreadsheets-are-all-you-need.ai/
AI skynet has not yet won.