> Karen Oyelaran finds the payload by reading the source code with her eyes and files a second issue. The triage assistant closes it as “duplicate of #8814.” Issue #8814 is a feature request for dark mode. Karen reopens it. The assistant closes it. Karen reopens it. Karen’s GitHub account is rate-limited for “patterns consistent with automated behaviour.”
And this - the final sentence is a perfect indictment of the timeline we are in.
> Two AI review agents from competing vendors, both attached to a downstream pull request bumping foxhole-lz4, enter a disagreement loop over whether the package is malicious. After 340 comments and $41,255 in inference spend, Finance revokes both API keys; one vendor’s marketing team, cc’d on the cost anomaly alert, issues a press release citing “a 430% YoY increase in adversarial multi-agent security reasoning.” The stock opens up 6%.
The entire post is great, but the acknowledgements section is particularly excellent:
> Kubernetes (the dog), who was not involved in this incident but whose photo in the #incident-response channel was auto-tagged by the Slack image classifier as “container orchestration diagram (confidence: 0.31)”
> Approximately 11% of affected hosts were still running fish as their login shell following the February incident; this had no bearing on anything but is noted here for completeness
Yeah, this one got me laughing and seems like such a heavy Claudism. The number of times I'm reading Claude's response and throwing my hands in the air like, "What the fck does that have to do with anything!?" It's the worst part of the over eagerness.
Now there's a metric that would make my boss nervous.
> Total inference spend across all parties during the incident window was $1.7M, which Marketing has asked us to start describing as “a record investment in autonomous customer assurance.”
I think at some point we need a different or split up currency/economy, because these values make no sense. Just consider how this inference cost 1.062.500 tomatoes ($1.6) in the physical world.
Except it sort of does? You're paying for the food and shelter of the people engaged in all the manual labor in the supply chain which produces the electricity, for example.
Some of them likely eat tomatoes, so for that electricity you need to (indirectly) supply a certain number of tomatoes.
Which is the part about "what will human labor be worth?" that gets missed in all the AI discussion: it's the only thing the economy ultimately values.
(I know its a satire, but could be seen as an actual post mortem of the future incident) This report made me realize there's no place for humans, as it is right now, in the process of building software systems in the future. Reading this incident made me dizzy after few paragraphs because of the cognitive context overload and I lost track multiple times.
I kinda felt it was satire, but then the below quote threw me off:
> one vendor’s marketing team, cc’d on the cost anomaly alert, issues a press release citing “a 430% YoY increase in adversarial multi-agent security reasoning.” The stock opens up 6%.
That happens! That is not satire.
So i had to visit the comments here to be sure :)
(In all seriousness it seems this is the dream of a huge number of AI pilled execs dreaming of infinite velocity at a fraction of the cost... velocity pointed where, you ask? Well stop asking or you'll be next.)
I mean, none of the software or processes in this hypothetical future actually worked. At a certain point, even the most normal of normal people will push back on shitty software when their bank deletes their account or their software controlled brakes fail...
I actually know a goat rancher who is working to require ag impact studies for data centers in Texas. Sounds like I should give him a call while I can.
(Also CVE-2026-LGTM would be an awesome name for a Culture ship)
Side note: interesting to see how many folks commenting did not get it being satire (even the title has LGTM). I guess it's time to rethink how sharp the HN folks truly are compared to the average non-tech person (not that I had any big assumptions myself).
HN has a big blind spot, in my opinion, around writing that isn't "purely technical". I've seen several cases of commenter complaining about "clickbait" for a blog post that I'd describe as "having a narrative hook and structure"
This is usually my default position, but apparently that “gas town” article was Real and Serious and Distinctly Not Satire, and I started to feel reality fragmenting underneath me.
Yah well, I don't read all front-matter like that. Most of the time it's noise. Count it in the stuff that becomes cognitively invisible, like banner ads.
I really enjoyed the line “The incident was resolved when the attacker’s autonomous agent read a file it shouldn’t have, which is also how the incident started.”
It's funny that as the most popular programming languages FINALLY got smart injection-safe SQL strings (js template literals etc), we're right back to square one with AI over the top that can't tell the difference between trusted and untrusted content. Funny and sad.
This tells you all you need to know about the "fox":
"This report was reviewed by Legal, who have asked us to clarify that the fox was depicted as over eighteen and that the sunglasses remained on throughout."
>it’s buried in the tags as grey on light grey on white.
if you happened to miss the tags, reading approximately any of the article should make it pretty clear.
"This report was reviewed by Legal, who have asked us to clarify that the fox was depicted as over eighteen and that the sunglasses remained on throughout."
it was just my favorite part. i can copy/paste all of the outlandish parts, if you want, but i would be copy/pasting the entire article.
ignoring the satire tag at the top of the page, some examples from the first ~20%:
- its on a personal blog, with no mention of what the actual product is
- resolving an incident "by treaty"
- "Severity: Informational → Critical → Withdrawn → Critical → Negotiated"
- incident *duration* measured in "billable tokens"
- link to a CVE named "YIKES"
- an incident being resolved by the attacker reading a file
- no dates provided, just "Day 1, 02:51 UTC"
- creats.io doesn't exist