What makes you think they are being absolutist when saying fuck Russia? You can disapprove of an unprovoked invasion from many, many ethical perspectives without going near absolutism.
Well, yes. But the US launches fairly regular unprovoked invasions. We might be watching them ramping up to one in Iran even as we type, it is quite a delicate situation. So the author clearly isn't worried about Russia just because they launched an unprovoked invasion or they wouldn't be willing to deal with the US. She must have other reasons.
I don't really see them saying fuck the US, even though they've bombed girls schools in Iran.
Or saying fuck Israel because of their super well documented ongoing genocide.
"You can disapprove of ... from many, many ethical perspectives without going near absolutism."
Did they find evidence of their service being used to bomb schools in Iran, like they found for Russia tracking launch sites in Ukraine?
If not, then why would they go on such a tangent? Do you expect them to list every one of their personal geopolitical stances, regardless of the relevance to the article?
> like they found for Russia tracking launch sites in Ukraine
My understanding of that section was that Ukraine were using it to find launch sites in occupied parts of Ukraine - they go on to describe how they helped someone who had been doing the tracking:
[From article]
> We emailed back and forth and provided documentation on how to run the predictor locally.
Edit: my recollection of which parts of Ukraine are occcupied was wrong, leaving me rather confused about who they thought they were helping.
I think the actor they were monitoring was not tracking real launches but rather simulating where a hypothetical balloon launched from their territory would land.
I'd rather not engage in politics in HN, I'm surprised the article made it here to begin with like it's Reddit. Also, if people already made up their mind then there's no reason for me to waste my time trying to explain anything, it will take a stand alone post with multiple pages if were really to go that route. I will say this, my position is similar to what Mearsheimer has been talking about when it comes to this conflict. Any of his lectures will brief you in on the nuance.
This is actually fascinating, and simultaneously unsettling. Recommended reading for sure, especially in today’s social and political climate with LLM agents running rampant.
I've seen some other suggestions of that idea in the full HN conversation, which I'm reacting to.
On the one hand I find it a bizarre approach to running a scam. On the other hand I'm having a hard time coming up with any theory of mind on my end as to why this person would solicit $5000+ from the people they just harassed. Sheer cluelessness does fit the facts, though.
One context I could imagine is a young person with shaky grasp of English trying to come up with an interesting school/university project via conversations with an LLM set up as an OpenClaw agent.
It's got the right combinations of inexperience, cluelessness, panic, expectations that Westerners are rich, and hopes of others being willing to fix their mistake.
If you’ve not encountered the clueless LLM cowboys who would do then and then blame the victim for it not working, you’ve not met many people yet. This round of hype provides new and shiny footguns which are Never the shooter’s fault.
A highly publicized recent example: the author (of a book about genAI!) who doesn’t understand why he should be held responsible for the fake quotes he copy and pasted into his book from ChatGPT [1].
> I do not understand why it's my job as an author to play whack-a-mole with a multibillion-dollar company who puts hallucinations into their feed as a business practice.
I’m just a lowly dev and don’t have experience with seeing the bills from cloud providers for a whole org.
Can you (or someone) shed some light to help me understand how this would ramp up to millions? Both for curiosity’s sake, and to make sure my self-deployed projects (0 AI, all manually configured) don’t bankrupt me.
AWS bandwidth is expensive as fuck. I think they're still pricing as $0.09 per GB?
Real wholesale bandwidth pricing is about a hundred times cheaper than that, and incoming bandwidth is often free. You could rent a server with 100Gbps connection, 10000TB/month outgoings cap (maybe), and have the AI spam packets to it, and mostly not reply to them. It would be expensive but not nearly as expensive as it would be for the guy on AWS.
Do some calculations: 100Gbps is 12.5 GBps which is about one dollar per second. Okay so maybe not millions of dollars but still a hundred thousand per day, while you are spending maybe 1000-3000 per month and cancelling after the first month.
> Real wholesale bandwidth pricing is about a hundred times cheaper than that.
It is alsi worth mentioning that it is just billed different. You either pay per port (and can use entire bandwidth) or per 95th percentile of the monthly speed usage. So if your traffic isn't spiky but consistent, you'd pay even less than "hundred times cheaper".
Excluding server costs, having that 100Gbps on egress can cost $50k a day. since it's a very high-margin product, AWS support would probably refund or reduce that to hundreds. Not sure how you get to millions either.
Why would AWS refund 100Gbps on egress since the account actively used that bandwidth? AWS would not know if this is legitimate traffic, a (D)DoS or whatever...
At most I think you could negotiate CloudFront rates, but even then, the sob story would be if you had been DDoSed and got hit with this traffic and AWS failed to protect you from this attack. Actively creating the outbound traffic is something that I don't see how AWS would be sympathetic to providing any refunds.
AWS is known for refunding or partially refunding people if they accidentally rack up a huge bill in a short amount of time. They even reduce the bill in this case. (I do think reducing a bill in the tens of thousands to hundreds is unlikely though)
I mean if this story is to be believed, AWS reduced the bill from 6500 to 1800.
I think developers accidentally racking up unexpected thousands in costs on their first AWS project is a pretty common phenomenon that their support has standard rules for handling.
I do think the discount is believable, but we don't know the line items AWS applied a discount/removed charges.
The developer said the agent deployed multiple CloudFormation templates, I'd bet that AWS waived the charges for the unused resources - like EC2 instances that were idle most of the time, very high margin SKUs, etc.
Now, for 100 Gbps of egress (which didn't actually happen) - and this is grounded speculation - I don't think that AWS would give a discount that is greater than CloudFront rates.
> Most visibly homeless people in wealthy west coast cities are severely mentally ill in ways that prevent them from living a normal life or even living peacefully with other people without some kind of institutionalization
Sources? This just sounds like cope from a wealthy individual who wants to feel better about not helping the problem.
It's hard to find anyone that doesn't have some motivation in this problem. I won't claim any percentages because I do not know them and I would not trust them even if I did.
That said, my experience in a urban area on the west coast has given me many examples that support this notion that it's not just a housing problem. Indeed many of the local governments own attempts to house the unhoused fail in no small part because the unhoused create conditions incompatible with staying housed.
Furthermore there is a steady drip of examples in regional news that raise serious questions about the efficacy if not motivations of the judiciary, politicians, law enforcement and local beuracracies charged with addressing the problem.
I do believe that housing costs are a major part of the problem but I also believe that treating the population as if they have no obligations to society is a major and fatal mistake to the whole enterprise. For one the policy approach has invited contagion by not addressing the population of unhoused that cannot or will not uphold the most basic aspects of the social contract. For two, it turns away a large number of people that would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause.
> That said, my experience in an urban area on the west coast has given me many examples that support this notion that it's not just a housing problem.
You would know more about the situation in west coast cities better than myself, I’ll admit.
What I take issue with is how the anecdotes closely align with certain political talking points - it rings an alarm bell or two, and begs for more concrete sources. Personally, I couldn’t find any reliable sources saying one way or the other.
Anecdotes are highly susceptible to confirmation bias though, along with other biases. It’s one of the reasons propaganda is so effective: our preconceived notions influence how we see and interpret the world around us. This affects me too, I’m not immune to propaganda (2015 me thought the idea of a Trump presidency was “funny” because of the memes and I thought he had zero chance of winning, for example - don’t worry, I’m not American so no votes were cast!)
I appreciate you taking the time to respond with such detail, and you seem to be writing in good faith, but I think this issue is a lot more nuanced than (paraphrasing - not trying to directly attribute a quote to you) “the homeless in west coast cities are there because they cannot function normally in society”.
It’s a sensitive topic for me personally because my family was one of those “sheltered homeless” families for a few years when I was still single-digits of age, and growing up in severe poverty I also met many other homeless people. I can guarantee you, if wealth inequality were not so severe then many people wouldn’t have fallen into drugs and mental health crises to begin with.
Many folks see it as a “chicken or egg” problem, when really, we all know that struggling to make ends meet and being evicted is highly stressful and traumatic. Wealth inequality is the root of many of these tragic stories, and it’s unfair to label everyone in that position as if they’re fully to blame for their situation in life.
But, again, I’m not American and my culture is much more socialist and cooperative. So maybe the unhoused in America truly do fit your descriptions, and I simply have no idea what I’m talking about. :P
In any case, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful replies.
