bshanks

Thanks! This is very exciting.

It looks like the spend limits can't be applied to existing AWS Accounts but only to new Projects, that there is no migration path from AWS Account -> Project, that you can only have 10 projects with Spend Limits, and that Projects can't use any region other than one of three regions determined by your organizational contact address. Is the plan to get rid of these limitations or should we expect these limitations to stay?

My use case is that our company would like to empower our AI agents to do a lot of stuff autonomously that involves reprogramming and spinning up EC2 instances (which, for reasons of latency, often need to be in particular regions other than our company's home address), and also doing data science on large amounts of existing data in our S3 Glacier. We would like to just let the agents run continuously, including when we are all asleep (and there would be no one around to respond to a budget alert). But we are worried that these AI agents might make a mistake that very quickly spends too much money (e.g. spinning up orders of magnitude more instances than they should). Since the agents are autonomous, they might spend money in a way we haven't thought of, so fine-grained budget-based automation wouldn't always work, and account-level spend controls are needed.

If someone had said, "I am generally not opposed to regulation, but this is a place where I don't support it.", you could have replied to it in a similar fashion, but reversed.

What's the conservative best practice for a solo founder (a one person company; assume the person spends ~20 hours per week on software development/maintenance and the rest of the time on other stuff)?

The main issue here is not UX, but rather that you did something which degraded quality without transparency. You should have documented this and also highlighted the change in an announcement. There should never be an undocumented change that reduces quality. There should never be something the user can do (or fail to do) that reduces quality without that being documented. To regain trust, Anthropic should make an announcement committing to documenting/announcing any future intentional quality-reducing changes.

In addition, the following is less important, but as other commenters have stated: walking away from a conversation and coming back to it more than an hour later is very common and it would be nice if there were a way for the user to opt to retain maximum quality (e.g. no dropped thinking) in this case. In the longer term, it would be nice if there were a way for the user to wait a few minutes for a stale session to resume, in exchange for not having a large amount of quota drained (ie have a 'slow mode' invoked upon session resumption that consumes less quota).

The first thing to do is to put LLMs to work to generate large knowledge bases of commonsense knowledge in symbolic machine-readable formats that Cyc-like projects can consume.

I don't understand why an Income Sharing Agreement would be classified as loans. They seem more like equity than debt; the amount that students would pay depends on their future income, and can be arbitrarily small or large (right? or maybe I am misunderstanding the terms of these agreements).

I had thought that debt is when you have to pay back at least the "principal" no matter what, and equity is when the financier shares the risk of you failing. Maybe that's not correct, though?

Does the definition of a "loan" include any sort of financing, even if the amount that needs to be "paid back" to the "lender" can be arbitrarily small or large? That would make equity financing a special case of debt.

Even if other users (or possibly, sock puppets of the attacker) had not been complaining, the original maintainer probably would have began to trust the attacker after enough real contributions.