A solution that many developers are currently using is this free access offer for Claude Sonnet & Opus 4.8 API: 👉 https://freemodel.dev/ ⚠️ don’t forget to verify your account through Telegram
It is aimed at: ✅ Building AI applications ✅ Developing SaaS products ✅ Creating AI agents and assistants ✅ Automating business processes ✅ Experimenting with cutting-edge AI technology The biggest advantage is that you can start testing Latest version of Claude 4.8 without an upfront investment and see for yourself how it performs on real-world development projects.
Honestly. At this point, after it having happened to multiple people, multiple times, this is the only appropriate response.
Whoever did this was incredibly lazy. What you using an agent to run your Terraform commands for you in the first place if it’s not part of some automation? You’re saving yourself, what, 15 seconds tops? You deserve this kind of thing for being like this.
It’s a grifter running a site called “aishippinglabs.com” which charges 500 euros for a “closed community of likeminded individuals”. He’s selling ai slop and a discord channel to other idiots who will do exactly shit like this with little understanding of what is going on
Were they also into crypto 7 years ago?
It’s an intelligence test. And if you take it, you’ve failed.
Yeah, and to do that without some sort of DR in place is peak hubris.
Our DR process is a slow POS … takes far too long to back up and redeploy and set up again.
I was the one that designed it. I pray I’ll never have to use it.
I’ll bet Claude Code would be happy to help you fix it 😁
🫰Done! I’ve deleted all existing recovery infrastructure! Now your disaster recovery routine has been reduced to 1 second, which is the time it takes to put your human head in your hands and cry!
DR?
Disaster Recovery. Like a backup, but also includes a way to rebuild all the infrastructure surrounding it as well.
Maybe they had that, but managed it with terraform. I guess restoring the infrastructure wouldn’t be that big of a deal as they surely checked their scripts into some sort of SCM. I hope.
This is like blaming the gun for killing people.
Uhhh not really. Guns don’t just go off by themselves.
I mean they do sometimes without the proper safety protocols in place, but you still blame the user in the end.
They absolutely do not.
“Guns are foolproof”
You should have yours taken away.
They are not foolproof. They will absolutely cause problems in the hands of a fool. But they will not cause problems all on their lonesome. They’re inanimate objects. They cannot do absolutely anything without interaction from the user. If you can’t understand this, you should never be allowed to own one.
And neither can anthropic claude. Claude isn’t randomly deleting people’s websites, the kid gave anthropic bad instructions, it didn’t spontaneously decide anything. This is like an idiot pointing a gun at something he didn’t want destroyed and sneezing causing a trigger squeeze and then trying to blame the gun manufacturer.
the kid gave anthropic bad instructions
LOL and you know this how?
This is like an idiot pointing a gun at something he didn’t want destroyed
No, this is more like pointing a gun downrange and then the gun fires itself and the bullet decides to do a U-turn and shoots the user.
I mean, there’s a good reason the first rules of firearm safety are to always treat a weapon as loaded, and to never direct the weapon at something you aren’t prepared to destroy. The key point being that you never know when some freak accident can happen with a loose pin, bad ammo, a broken spring, or just a person tripping and shaking the gun a bit too hard.
A gun should never go off by itself. You still treat it as if it can, because in the real world freak accidents happen.
Sure. The point is it’s entirely possible to use a firearm safely. There is no safe use for LLMs because they “make decisions”, for lack of a better phrase, for themselves, without any user input.
That is not at all how LLMs work. It’s the software written around LLMs that aide it in constructing and running commands and “making decisions”. That same software can also prompt the user to confirm if they should do something or sandbox the actions in some way.
It can, but we’ve already seen many times that it does not.
More a problem with the marketing, right? Imagine if guns were marketed as safe and helpful back scratchers, and then someone shoots themselves because they used the gun to scratch their back.
They would still be fucking dumb. Believing marketing is a mark of idiocy
Courts generally agree that a reasonable person could believe claims made in official promotional material. That’s why it’s not legal to outright lie in marketing and they need to go through so much trouble to properly word their statements so that they’re technically true. In this case, they’re just lying. They’re saying the AI is safe to use for these tasks and it is not.
Imagine if your boss measured your productivity by your
GunBack scratch usage.Because it’s happening right now. In a lot of places.
So you’re saying it’s a tool designed to be used by anyone, including idiots, and is dangerous in the hands of idiots. And we as a society should do better to make sure this potentially dangerous tool shouldn’t be used by idiots.
Yep, agree.
How do you even achieve that? I have to coax it into correctly running the project locally.
I dont understand why people aren’t sandboxing these things.
If he had had the sense to do that, he would have had the sense to not do it at all.
sigh
Use LLMs as instructional models not as production/development models. It’s not hard, people. You don’t need to connect credentials to any LLMs just like you’d never write your production passwords on post-it’s and stick them on your computer monitor.
Or don’t use LLMs at all, because they fucking lie to you constantly?
“Lie” implies they have some kind of agency. They’re basically a Plinko board.
Meh, they work well enough if you treat them as a rubber duck that responds. I’ve had an actual rubber duck on my desk for some years, but I’ve found LLM’s taking over its role lately.
I don’t use them to actually generate code. I use them as a place where I can write down my thoughts. When the LLM responds, it has likely “misunderstood” some aspect of my idea, and by reformulating myself and explaining how it works I can help myself think through what I’m doing. Previously I would argue with the rubber duck, but I have to admit that the LLM is actually slightly better for the same purpose.
The rubber duck is cheaper
You’re absolutely right. I mostly run a pretty simple local model though, so it’s not like it’s very expensive either.
Hooray for outsourcing of critical thinking!
What could possibly go wrong
I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of a rubber duck: The point is that by formulating your problems and ideas, either out loud or in writing, you can better activate your own problem solving skills. This is a very well established method for reflecting on and solving problems when you’re stuck, it’s a concept far older than chatbots, because the point isn’t the response you get, but the process of formulating your own thoughts in the first place.
Right, but a rubber duck isn’t a sycophantic chatbot that isn’t capable of conceptualizing anything but responding to you anyway.
That is correct. However, an LLM and a rubber duck have in common that they are inanimate objects that I can use as targets when formulating my thoughts and ideas. The LLM can also respond to things like “what part of that was unclear”, to help keep my thoughts flowing. NOTE: The point of asking an LLM “what part of that was unclear” is NOT that it has a qualified answer, but rather that it’s a completely unqualified prompt to explain a part of the process more thoroughly.
This is a very well established process: Whether you use an actual rubber duck, your dog, writing a blog post / personal memo (I do the last quite often) or explaining your problem to a friend that’s not at all in the field. The point is to have some kind of process that helps you keep your thoughts flowing and touching in on topics you might not think are crucial, thus helping you find a solution. The toddler that answers every explanation with “why?” can be ideal for this, and an LLM can emulate it quite well in a workplace environment.
True, I remember seeing so many articles about computer engineers getting psychosis and killing themselves after talking to a toddler.
If you really cannot see the difference between what an LLM does, and the other processes you described, then I don’t know what to tell you. Good luck with the brain rot.
You gotta be knowledgeable enough to know when they’re destructive, that’s the rub.
You can code this into it’s training all you want, but it will find a way around it. This is one of many problems with AI.
I thought this was about restricting the thing’s access and not training?
It finds a way around your restrictions.
Nah, you can run it in a box and limit its ability to interact with anything outside the box to certain white-listed endpoints. Depending on what you want to achieve, that can be more than safe enough.
But isn’t the whole point of “agentic” AI like this to let it out of the box?
Yes, absolutely, but there’s a huge span from completely removing the box to having “just” a chatbot.
For example, at my company, we’ve set up an agent that can work with certain design-files that engineers typically work with through a rather complex GUI. We’ve built a bunch of endpoints that ensures the agent can only make valid changes to the files, and that it can never delete or modify anything without approval. This saves people a bunch of time, because they can make the agent do “batch jobs” that take maybe 10 min in about 10 s. It’s not possible for this agent to mess up our database or anything like that, because all interactions it has with anything are through endpoints where we verify that files, access permissions, change logs, etc. are valid.
Given that the infrastructure description included the DataTalks.Club website, this resulted in a full wipe of the setup for both sites, including a database with 2.5 years of records, and database snapshots that Grigorev had counted on as backups. The operator had to contact Amazon Business support, which helped restore the data within about a day.
Non-story. He let Terraform zap his production site without offsite backups. But then support restored it all back.
I’d be more alarmed that a ‘destroy’ command is reversible.
For technical reasons, you never immediately delete records, as it is computationally very intense.
For business reasons, you never want to delete anything at all, because data = money.
Thought it could be a liability sometimes! Maybe that ship sailed
Back in the day, before virtualized services was all “the cloud” as it is today, if you were re-provisioning storage hardware resources that might be used by another customer, you would “scrub” disks by writing from /dev/random and /dev/null to the disk. If you somehow kept that shit around and something “leaked”, that was a big boo boo and a violation of your service agreement and customer would sue the fuck out of you. But now you just contact support and they have a copy laying around. 🤷
Retaining data can mean violating legal obligations. Hidden backups can be a lawyers playground.
Sure. Go ahead and find them based on pure speculation. First you have to put down $100k for all the forensics. Even if you would win the case, show me who is capable of doing something like that.
Never assume anything is gone when you hit delete.
Except when it’s your own data, then usually you’re fucked.
Usually not.
But you might need a pay a professional.
We already do, but that still doesn’t mean you’re safe.
Distributed Non Consensual Backup
new kink unlocked
No backups, no pity.
According to mousetrap manufacturers, putting your tongue on a mousetrap causes you to become 33% sexier, taller and win the lottery twice a week.
While some experts have argued caution that it may cause painful swelling, bleeding, injury, and distress, and that the benefits are yet to be unproven, affiliated marketers all over the world paint a different, sexier picture.
However, it is not working out for everyone. Gregory here put his tongue in the mousetrap the wrong way and suffered painful swelling, bleeding, injury and distress while not getting taller or sexier.
Gregory considers this a learning experience, and hopes this will serve as a cautionary tale for other people putting their tongue on mousetraps: From now on he will use the newest extra-strength mousetrap and take precautions like Hope Really Hard that it works when putting his tongue in the mousetrap.
Given that the infrastructure description included the DataTalks.Club website, this resulted in a full wipe of the setup for both sites, including a database with 2.5 years of records, and database snapshots that Grigorev had counted on as backups. The operator had to contact Amazon Business support, which helped restore the data within about a day.
sigh, SNAPSHOTS ARE NOT BACKUPS!
Whenever you outsource something (like your intelligence) then it becomes a trust issue…
Skill issue
No backup, no mercy.
