Your comment was likely focused on dysfunctional parts of the culture there (and that seems to be how most replies to you interpreted it as well). There's truth to that, sure. But I think respect for data sensitivity and security is also a big part of what makes the culture ill-suited for frontier AI lab work.
When I was at AWS, we had data access locked down very tightly. I was trying to train a model to predict how long various dynamic workloads running on behalf of customers would take. Just getting access to anonymized production data from a DB that my team owned took well over a month and had me compromise heavily on what attributes I could access. I also spent a decent amount of time in meetings with lawyers and compliance folks to explain and justify all our data classifications for PII, retention, access controls, etc. We would review our data policies quite frequently. We needed break-glass procedures to access prod data in our own systems, and it was uncommon to need to resort to that. Even when you broke glass, certain classes of sensitive data would still not be visible to you. On the plus side, We did get quite good at operating and maintaining systems without needing to see sensitive info.
If you contrast that with Meta's disregard for privacy or the way frontier labs disregard the law, it's easy to see why Amazon would struggle in this space.
I read your comment as “amazon acts too responsibly to be a frontier lab,” and that worries me. That they even bothered to do all that stuff is good. That others don’t is bad.
I did indeed mean it that way, but I agree with you. It sucks, but it's just the unfortunate reality of the world. Many of the most disruptive and successful startups made it there by ignoring legal or moral limitations.
Frankly reading your comments was a relief. I'd rather they take my privacy (and security) seriously. I don't need or want any AI features or technology from Amazon, thanks very much.
Amazon has a history of fostering off-shoot companies that are given more freedom to innovate[1][2]. Keeping AI development in-house under Bedrock was probably their mistake. There's a big difference between running AI and developing new AI models.
Their core selling point is customer trust that their product works as advertised.
From my interactions with them, is that they really care about customer success, and everything including AI is a means to an end to them.
I think building a cool product with undefined reliability and capabilities, then selling fantasies about what it will possibly be able to do down the line isn't really what they do - or what their customers are paying for.
I agree, from my personal experience. AWS support at most tiers I’ve used is excellent. Granted, the larger account you have, the friendlier the service, but even when using it for smaller personal projects, I’ve always been pleased with the level of support and devotion to customer experience (except the console experience, that is not fun).
Don’t know to comment about the other areas of their business but AWS has always been excellent for me.
Incentives can produce locally rational and globally harmful behavior. (See also: "Moloch", although I'm less of a fan of the concept lately since it focuses exclusively on the harmful aspects of emergent systems, deleting the neutral and positive ones in the process.)
A relevant metaphor is the nuclear arms race. Nobody wants a world full of nukes pointed at each other, but if the other guy is gonna do it...
The argument in this case is, we can't slow down, because China certainly won't, and do you want those guys to build the machine God first? So it's "rational" to maximize p(accidental_skynet).
I interned there for a summer working on evaluating text generation and despite the fact that I used no consumer data whatsoever, but rather a well-known public research dataset, I also couldn't egress from the machines I ran training on. Not even reports on the training (admittedly, this was 2021 when they had just introduced this new system). So it was even more of a damper on research progress than you might imagine.
People, usually starting from scratch (0 to no seed funds), immigrating to the US from communist countries and becoming financially stable at the minimum, often times building muiltimillion dollar empires and less often, muiltibillion dollar empires. ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini/Grok will give you well researched datapoints that you will be able to follow up on yourself.
I can suggest a prompt that will report how many founders part of Y-Combinator, who came from nothing, some immigrants from communist countries, have become ridiculously successful.
Have you tried to start a business in Pakisthan, Russia, Cuba or China as an outsider? Even with a few thousand dollars as seed? Do you want to buy a house in Pakisthan, Russia, Cuba? Do you want to study there?
... but you didn't answer my question, and I have yours.
this is arguably why he is the way he is: NYC high society mocked him to his face.
a lot of his "burn it down, fuck em" attitude stems from that.
he is, however, completely and utterly narcissistic and greedy, and smart rich people are able to play him like a fiddle.
the KGB picked up on that in, like, the 80's, after Ivana's dad -- an informant for the Czechoslovakian secret police -- passed on details of their relationship to the Czech internal security
Too bad they died off, those were the captains of industry in the 20th century, it was tragic to see them go.
Now it's even more tragic with huddles built from captains of non-industry, "monetizing" rather than producing.
If a consumer recovery is going to happen, what is it being produced that the bottom 10% is going to consume where they can get their money's worth if nothing in the affordable tier qualifies any more? A greater number of people across the board need to get their money's worth on almost everything like never before seen during so many peoples' lifetime at this point.
I liked it better when Trump-like character was almost universally recognized as nothing other than a mindless financial squanderer wrapped around an inherently dishonest core. This was voiced most strongly especially among the rich and powerful.
They used to know better, but that was then and these are not them.
Which has nothing to do with Amazon. Except for the way the political party which leveraged Reaganomics in the 20th century to the effect that average consumers would eventually no longer be able to afford anything other than Chinese-made products, turned out to be the same party which fell behind Trump in the 21st century as if his financial acumen was't completely non-advanced.
And just as consumer prices of the Chinese mass-produced goods continued to fall as desperately needed by consumers due to direct purchase from China, Trump halts that so there's more need to go through Amazon, they can maintain more control that way.
What does that have to do with anything? And still, so what?
Do the rich hate him because he exploits the working class? Because they think the way he got rich is obscene? No! It's because he won't shut up, and says the quiet parts out loud. They only hate his personality. You would know if they hated his policies, which they don't, because he'd be out on his senile ass before you could say dementia.
> That they even bothered to do all that stuff is good. That others don’t is bad
good and bad isn't what Meta and AWS is running with. If AWS trains willy nilly on user data like Meta does, AWS is toast. AWS is already taking a huge risk by now using their own take of AWS FDEs competing against their established ecosystem of consulting companies that used to recommend all 583 of AWS products to host a static webpage. Turning of more customers by training on their data is too much of a risk. That's the "good" - a risk analysis.
Meta doesn't care if you stop using Facebook, Whatsapp etc. Frankly, if you are embedded in the Facebook, Whatsapp ecosystem, you don't have a way out as a normie. Even if you are technically capable, good luck publishing your custom Mattermost build for iOS.
Meta has a significant amount of investment in hardware, originally due to Metaverse. The way to monetize that investment is inference and training. That's a do or die decision for Meta. Meta isn't releasing open-weight models because they are "good".
Meta is releasing open-weight models for the same reason Alibaba, NVIDIA or IBM does. Or Google releases Gemma.
There's no "good" or "bad" - the moment Alibaba, NVIDIA, IBM or Google's objective functions change, "Do no evil" will quickly morph into "Do as much evil as necessary without the costs of getting caught exceeding E(outcome)"
this. the culture that makes AWS the gold standard in cloud security (yes, it is still the best in the business despite the one-off embarrassing CapitalOne incident) with a strong emphasis on locking down data, minimizing PII, and saying “no” by default, is the very opposite of what building frontier LLMs is all about, which is really around hoovering up vast amounts of other peoples data and moving fast before the rules catch up.
That explains a lot. They are anti “move fast and break things” which is great news for enterprises or anyone seeking stability but terrible for innovation.
I don’t condone the use of pirated content for training. But anything that was bought is above the board as far as I’m concerned. Can let the lawyers fight out the minutia and inevitable licensing specifics after the fact (book publishers are hawks).
Fun fact, did you know that every library in the world has an independent contract with every major book publisher?
In cases I am familiar with, they added a condition that a physical book can only be lent X times. After that, the library must purchase a new copy (even if the original copy is in pristine condition). Yeah, hawks.
What you are citing appears to me as a business use case of classical machine learning models not necessarily LLMs, and demand forecasting. Frontier AI is clearly not dependent on such data, and has many outside data sources and I'm even sure sensitive AWS data would be of good use as training data, not to mention the legal/contractual obligations AWS has in protecting that data, what am I missing?
That was just an example anecdote to highlight the culture around respecting privacy and security. Obviously AWS would never allow for training on customer data, but even for metadata or data of our own internal systems, things are super strict.
Public datasets that are liberal with licensed access is one thing, but the best frontier labs clearly went well beyond that.
Not an employee, just have a "shit ton" of Amazon stock that has been beating inflation very well. The last few quarters of volatility has allowed me to buy and sell, often fully covering my monthly expenses. I'm very greatful for that. Far from a company "nobody" wants to work for. You have a better performing company than Amazon to recommend that I can use instead? I'm all ears and I'll even give you a kickback for your time!
This is what I've heard from my friends both there and at Meta. It definitely doesn't carry the prestige it once did. It's more like, "willing to get yelled at, be afraid of being put on a PIP every day, and trying to ensure output outpaces your peers". That's sad, but it's where the industry is at so many places right now.
Amazon offers good signing bonuses that pay out over two years, so it's very common to peace out right at the 2-year mark when your take-home pay abruptly goes way down and the grind is no longer worth it. That's what I did, and I noticed it almost everywhere: there's a constant revolving door of inexperienced people. I don't understand how they keep it going with so much turnover, but somehow they've built a system that kinda withstands it, except in frontier AI apparently.
I think it's coasting on that prestige of being FAANG. People still want it on their resume. I share this from time to time but I interviewed there at the same time I interviewed at Facebook (right before the name change). And the difference was night and day. Amazon truly treated me like cattle. Get in, do the automated Leetcode/HackerRank thing. Canned conversations. Facebook at least _seemed_ like they were rooting for my success the entire time.
I will say it’s an excellent place to learn on-the-job engineering fundamentals as a junior if you’re ok with the otherwise shitty culture for a year or two. The high turnover also means they’re really efficient at training new people.
Because all humans are 100% fungible with all other humans. So, you can take whatever old humans you have, throw them away (or make them want to leave), and then replace them with all new humans, with zero negative effect on anything. Rinse and repeat.
Human experience means nothing. Anything that does have meaning gets encoded in the system for the mindless humans to implement.
That’s my take on the view from the top, based on my time working at AWS.
If you chart money in your pocket per unit time, it takes a dip around 18 months where your average pay is less than your first month’s pay. (When I was there, using RSU numbers for that time.) Guess when average quitting time was?
HR swore it wasn’t on purpose and I was somehow measuring pay “wrong” by looking at money in my pocket over time; but knowing their HR, I’m sure the valleys in transition from signing bonus to vesting are intentional.
This is where Bayes bites in practice: we can know that impatient and long-minded behaviors are correlated to outcomes, ie p(quit | impatient), without the outcome meaningfully informing which case we have, ie p(impatient | quit).
That’s because people are complicated and do things for many reasons, so people quitting when we cut their pay might not tell us they’re impatient.
I suspect the intent is what you say, but I don’t think the outcome is.
Was s3 the last time Amazon showed lab grade innovation? Lambda?
I could be wrong because I haven't paid much attention but Amazon has just fast followed everyone else innovation for a awhile so it's in like one ecosystem yeah?
I'm not trying to be snarky, I just haven't thought about aws as having any innovation for a while and I always figured it was because ruthless companies that churn through people as disposable commodities generally don't do tech innovation.
I'm talking on the AWS side, on the logistics side they clearly are doing insane things on supply chain perf optimization.
Dunno about that, but my experience with AWS is their stuff generally works, the other big 2 doesn't.
Generally speaking, on AWS you can buy compute, storage, network and other basic 'goods' and just like a supermarket where you can get either flour and eggs, a cake mix or a ready-made cake, AWS is willing to serve it to you in various levels of ready-ness, and you can start at the level you want, and build your own layers on top if you don't like AWS's solutions.
And AWS's solutions are generally built like that as well, there's no magic to Lambda or Fargate or EKS, its just they run the same EC2s, but with some proprietary magic that lifts some complexity from your shoulders, at the cost of generally some markup, and loss of some otherwise desirable features.
But the core thing is that AWS's offerings are generally solid, so as AI evolves and companies become more willing to take on more complexity, they will move to lower level services, but not necessarily out of AWS itself.
> I could be wrong because I haven't paid much attention but Amazon has just fast followed everyone else innovation for a awhile so it's in like one ecosystem yeah?
A lot of innovation at AWS is invisible on the outside. They pioneered hyperscale datacenters with publicly accessible capacity, software-defined networks, secure VMs, and so on.
> I'm not trying to be snarky, I just haven't thought about aws as having any innovation for a while and I always figured it was because ruthless companies that churn through people as disposable commodities generally don't do tech innovation.
I worked at AWS before COVID. It was really a varied experience, but it was not _bad_ overall. We prided ourselves on making sure our APIs are solid, stable, and backwards compatible. When we had to make a backwards-incompatible change, we actually contacted every affected customer and ensured that their workflows wouldn't be broken.
Oh for sure, these many years AWS has set a high bar in the service space for conscientiousness in offerings. When I compare to my personal work experiences with gcp and azure the amount of times I've been rug pulled over the years has been essentially zero for AWS.
I had to sell my EV and go back to ICE for the same reason: my new apartment didn't have EV charging, and non-Tesla DC fast-chargers in my area (Seattle/Tacoma) were unreliable as someone would come along every few weeks and cut off the charging cables for the copper, and it would then take more weeks for them to be repaired. The infrastructure was simply too unstable, but it did only cost me $300 in electricity for the entire year previously that I owned it.
Agree with this. Regardless of the politics involved, this exchange seems pretty mundane in the grand scheme of corporate emails. Taking Bosworth at face value here, it sounds like both camps got the same advice, one acted on it in full, the other didn't, the party that did saw better results, and on top of that had a better ads/targeting strategy that maximized platform ROI. If we removed the political parties from this and made them two companies, I'm not sure HN would have much of an issue with its content.
I doubt the Clinton campaign could have had as much of an impact with the same strategy. The Republican Party is fortunate in that it has a limited number of constituents:
- white
- Christian
- rural
- guns
- lower and upper class
The upper class votes on taxes, so that is an easy one.
The rest are relatively easy to target.
The Democratic Party tries to capture everyone else, which is more people but hugely diverse. There’s hardly a single message (or single digit number of them) that resonates universally.
Identifying someone as Republican gives your clear signal for targeting if you want to get out the base, as Trump did.
Identifying someone as Democratic means they could care about a huge range of things, but you don’t know what.
I can understand why you would think this - or rather, why you'd want to think this - because it lets you lean really hard into the "Republicans dumb lol" trope. But just to pick two of your examples, there are plenty of establishment Republicans who are quick to vote for increased gun control, and at least a few establishment Democrats who need quite a bit of convincing to do so. One side is better than the other (which is which depends on which side you're on, of course), but I'd say it's 80/20 when the media presents it more like 95/5.
And I don't know what "low class" means but if you're referring to socioeconomic status that doesn't match what you said either. According to Pew the bottom quintile (<36k/yr) is about 60/35 Democrat. The top quintile (215k/yr+) is about 53/46. Upper-middle ($144-215k/yr) is the only one with a Republican edge, and the other two (36-48, 48-144) are within the margin of error to 50/50.
I think of all your examples you probably have the strongest case to make with "rural" but I've met plenty of rural Dems in my life.
> The Republican Party is fortunate in that it has a limited number of constituents:
That's not at all true. The biggest contradiction is on trade. The "business" faction is against tariffs, but the worker base was for it. Same for immigration. Business is generally for it, the worker base is against it.
Yes, a cartel is a failure mode to be wary of, but it's quite tedious to call an attempt to negotiate an international agreement a cartel. Global agreements are necessary to solve global problems, and many people believe that "AI is moving too fast" is a global problem.
Also, all they've really said is that they think it would be a good idea. That's a long way from an actual agreement.
reply