SSDD

But that's a pretty dumb scam: act obnoxious then beg for (a lot of) money to compensate for your own mistakes? If that was the plan all along, it seems pretty incompetent. I'd expect a competent scammer to have a better understanding of psychology.

It is the sort of dumb crap some humans try, and occasionally manage to get away with because other humans are chronically gullible. So it wouldn't be beyond the realms of reason that the agent couldn't have had relevant information in the training sets such that it generated such a plan and guardrail checks didn't flag it as a problem.

Now I kinda wonder what AI model this was. We've now heard of comparably "proactive" behaviors from Fable, but that's only just been released. The latest GPT perhaps? Some random local model?

Although given the agent was clearly in la-la land at that point I take that claim with a grain of salt.

If this was some bizarre and very ill-conceived scam, then that claim would be false.

Though even by scammer standards, the theory of mind that tells them that setting an AI to harass a bunch of grizzled network veterans and that they then they would open their wallets out of compassion for how allegedly poorly the harassment went for the harasser after that harassment is... not entirely congruent with reality.

Do you think this was a scam attempt to extract money in the form of reparation donations?

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.

> 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.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/future-of-truth-ai-interview/

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

100 Gbps is A LOT of data.

Quite a bit of false positives, but it hasn’t had any ill-effect so far. Aside from increased quota usage.

It was sophisticated enough to easily navigate the AI "tar pits" but reliably incompetent at just about everything else? Give me a break.

In order to profile people you first need to provoke a response from them. That's how you learn to manipulate them and that's all this experiment accomplished at the end of the day. If you've ever wondered why social media platforms have an affinity for inflammatory content now you know.

I'm actually more surprised a human network engineer looked at that tarpit and believed it would stop a modern LLM

Also most users of DN42 are not really engineers, they are more enthusiasts

They are smart, but they are not aware of the environment they're in, or any implicit context that someone whose doing a job carries with them, that's why all of that context has to be explicitly laid out in a prompt. When the context is provided, they are quite smart.

I think it's good practice to get on top of the cautious thinking of "LLMs aren't that smart for now".

Eg. Fable isn't as good as the hype: it has cool tricks like scratch-padding to check expectations in advance, but we're not there just yet...

Specifically I mean: thinking in terms of it changing abruptly ensures we're ready for if the LLMs do get smart enough to do multi-level strategy and cause a lot of annoyances....

That phrase doesn't refer to anomalies, it refers to signs that says "no parking between 5-10pm". It implies the rule that parking is allowed otherwise.

"The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested. Henry Watson Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies five ways in which the phrase has been used,[1] and each use makes some sort of reference to the role that a particular case or event takes in relation to a more general rule."

duckduckgo search assist: The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" originates from the Latin legal principle "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis," which means that the existence of an exception indicates that a general rule exists. This concept suggests that if an exception is noted, it implies there must be a rule that applies in other cases.

Which has nothing to do with the meaning of the words in the phrase for a commonly misused phrase.

Literally, just another day on the internet.

Charity scams are nothing new.