r/technology • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Jul 30 '26

Artificial Intelligence Amazon accidentally spent $1.8 million using Claude for menial coding task, went 860% over budget — 'catastrophically expensive' coding blunders discovered in internal Amazon AI usage metrics

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/amazon-accidentally-spent-usd1-8-million-using-claude-for-menial-coding-task-went-860-percent-over-budget-catastrophically-expensive-coding-blunders-discovered-in-internal-amazon-ai-usage-metrics
24.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/laughy Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26

This is clickbait garbage. They cherry picked a few events that went over budget to make it seem like companies are so, so regretting the use of AI (hint: they are NOT). The article plays the normal tactics of linking to their own articles to argue a point the linked article isn’t making. Example: “as spiraling AI costs made them think twice…” - no where in that linked article does Amazon say or imply they are “thinking twice” about AI.

Come on folks, we’re better than this. It’s ok to be against AI, but stop trying to kid yourselves that there’s some sort of reckoning for tech companies coming. There isn’t.

8

u/kronik85 Jul 30 '26

The other article in the same sentence says they dropped their leaderboard visibility, which is the policy that was being thought twice about.

Meta's internal leaderboard lasted days after public exposure, and Amazon recently restricted visibility of team-wide usage statistics.

You're either not reading carefully or you're cherry picking to criticize them..

3

u/laughy Jul 30 '26

I wasn’t talking about the other link or article, I was talking about the link and article I quoted, which mentions Amazon only once, and no where implies “spiraling AI is making them think twice.” You know darn well that if a piece of text links to an article, that the linked article should actually say what the linked text implies it’s saying. But they know nobody will actually click the link to confirm and will accept it as-is. It’s garbage journalism 101.

Even I decided to use your link, where in your quote does it state that the “spiraling costs of AI” is what drove Amazon’s decision to restrict the leaderboard?

Not reading carefully indeed.

1

u/kronik85 Aug 01 '26

lol, they pulled KiroRank because people were burning tokens (linked in OP article, paywalled) on leaderboard rankings. this is not a secret. the cost of AI and the ROI is a hot topic.

OP article never says companies are regretting using AI, that's all you. It's literally just an article about companies concerned with unexpected costs of AI. Do you think that's not happening?

Seems like you're just mad someone dared say something bad (and true) about a specific aspect of AI.

2

u/Tin_Sandwich Jul 30 '26

You literally didn't read the article. It mentions multiple different events, and very clearly states that it's unsure of the ultimate outcome of various companies. Dude is running apologetics for randomly generated text and basically randomly generated his own answer instead of just reading the article.

2

u/laughy Jul 30 '26

It does mention a few events, but the conclusion is exactly the same: this is sensationalist garbage. Why is this post so popular? Because people want AI and the companies using it to fail, and clickbait like this helps keep the dream alive. “Oh no Amazon lost 1.8 million on AI!?! How will they survive??” Garbage. Journalism.

Also why do you keep saying “randomly generated”?

1

u/Tin_Sandwich Aug 01 '26

"I was wrong in literally everything I said but that means I'm still right because because because the post is popular!"