> "The tool itself worked properly and functioned as intended; however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify that the email address provided by the individual requesting a password reset matched the email address associated with that user’s Instagram account," said Meta in its breach notice.
I'm not sure "worked properly" and "as intended" accurately describe this situation.
I also can't believe the people who were involved with writing this response from Meta, didn't realize how obviously bad it sounds. It's like there is no humans working and writing there anymore.
> It's like there is no humans working and writing there anymore.
Don't know if AI is to blame, but I've used to see these kinds of nonsense post-mortems even in the pre-llm era, and it's always due to some internal fighting ongoing between various departments.
A friend said at one of those moments, "And other than that, how was the play Mrs Lincoln?" And the 3rd person replied, "I don't know, I've never seen the play 'Mrs Lincoln'"
Does it matter if the response is tone deaf or simply misguided? I am a bit nihilistic here, but in one week absolutely nobody will be talking about this. Are the affected individuals going to abandon instagram? Are people going to reduce their usage out of concern for the safety of their accounts? Nothing will happen, hence there is no need for actual humans writing a good, well intended response.
> Does it matter if the response is tone deaf or simply misguided?
I agree with you that in a week nobody will be talking any more, but I'm pretty sure it's a GDPR data breach, and they can have some trouble within EU.
Yeah, they probably don't give a fu.. about EU, but if the response doesn't matter at all why did they spend time on it?
To be fair, that quote in the original article could have more context. By "The tool" they meant "AI-assisted support tool"[1]; perhaps they meant that the issue was not an AI hallucination inherent of the tool, but a fixable bug.
In that case, the statement is so meaningless as to be useless. Why should we care how Meta splits up their microservices? The tool still failed. They just want to redefine the "tool" as something else, anything else, to avoid having to admit something negative about their precious AI.
> The LLM correctly generated tokens according to user input, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
> Nginx correctly handled the user requests according to the HTTP standard, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
I'd love to read a proper technical post-mortem, but this obviously isn't it. It's a carefully-worded statement from a lawyer meant to minimize liability and reputational damage to the company.
It probably could have been, but how likely is that compared to with the AI agent? I'd assume (and I'm ready to look like an idiot if I'm wrong) that the humans are trained to send the verification code to the email address on file, rather than any address the client asks them to. I'd certainly assume most of them are more afraid of the consequences than the AI is.
I get the joke, but it's a relevant nuance that the new code, the chatbot, did not have 'the bug'. I still think that the mistake and head that should roll should be the one that published the chatbot.
But it's important to acknowledge that there was a 'bug' in an underlying tool and not in the chatbot, and still PIP/fire those responsible for publishing the chatbot and exposed an otherwise internal tool to the public, and not those that introduced the 'bug' to an internal tool.
That sounds a lot like the justifications Claude and ChatGPT give when confronted about something they did wrong, or when asked to provide a customer support response about software issues
I've lost track of the number of times Claude has basically said "it was like that when i got here" in the face of a clearly bogus choice and easily disproved explanation.
They should add a feature called "auto-really" that just automatically says "really?" after the chatbot answers a question to check if it's going to 180 upon this tiniest bit of scrutinity.
The argument here is that the AI is a glorified input page. The input field asks for your username and email and sends it to a backend function. Such an input page is working as intended.
The problem is when the backend function doesn't verify that the email matches the username.
Why on earth would the backend function even take an email?
Or perhaps said different: use the submitted info to identify the account; send any sensitive messages (recovery codes, password resets whatever) to only the contact info on file. If the chat bot can send such email it should do so via an API that sends only to contact info on file for the associated account and not to an email that's provided by the bot.
> Why on earth would the backend function even take an email?
In principle, it could be designed to do so to handle cases where a new email address has been confirmed out of band, e.g. for an account representing a company or a political office. But that's a relatively unusual situation, not something you'd want to be available to every user writing in. (Even if you had an all-human support department, this sort of functionality would only be available to a select few agents.)
I like to dunk on Meta as much as the next guy, but I think this makes sense: deterministic verification like this is not, and should never be, the LLM’s job. The tools it has access to should enforce the permissions layer, ensuring that the LLM can never perform actions the user themselves should not be allowed to perform. In this case, the tool failed to do that.
> But when humans handled it, this was not as much as a problem.
In fact it's arguably a feature. The ability of support staff to short-circuit nitpicky rules when there's an obvious external validation happening (e.g. you're on the phone with a user who's presenting ID in real time and correlating it with previous use of the account, etc...) makes for better data quality and happier customers.
Obviously, yes, you can then human-engineer an authentication breach. But that was very difficult, because people are "common-sense careful" in a way we haven't been able to tease out of AI yet.
so how long was the bug there? was there a way to access it before/without the support agent? it feels like Meta will throw anything under the bus to redirect blame from the AI, because that would be the end of their $600B (depending on “which number you want to go with”) experiment
What I gather is that this internal tool was used by human support agents, and it was their responsibility to verify the email adresses and general validity of a claim.
But when implementing AGI TM that was overseen, maybe the oversight in the separate code path was a 'bug', but the mistake was making the chatbot obviously, if the separate code path had a bug, then it had become ossified into a feature, and it was internal, not exposed to the public.
This is an external communication, to save face sure, but if this is the internal excuse, it would be absolutely the wrong RCA and it reads as if the one who made the mistake is not admitting they made their mistake. Which to be honest, just making the mistake is enough to get fired, but not admitting it is enough to get ultra fired.
"Meta notified at least 20,225 people that their accounts had been compromised. [...]
The compromises allowed the hackers to take over the person's entire Instagram and any linked accounts, including obtaining contact information, dates of birth, and profile information, as well as the ability to access the person's posts, direct messages, and account activity [...]
the hacks began around April 17 and lasted until this week [...]"
This is extremely common, unfortunately, to a point where it's a known/expected outcome when you're first creating a brand or product page among those in the biz.
If this doesn't work, I'd encourage you to reach out to a brand/ad agency and pay them $100 to ask their meta contact to help you get unblocked. You pretty much have to know someone who knows someone at meta in order to create these.
Tip: Do not post about this on twitter or other platforms - you'll get a ton of automated spam.
There's an excellent little book in German called "KI und der Neue Faschismus" [1] (AI and the New Fascism) where the author (Rainer Mühlhoff) tries to warn about the dangers of decisions based on opaque statistical models (like LLMs) instead of a clear, human auditable decision process.
They're awful with this. Any time I try to create an account to use for business purposes I'm asked for id within minutes and then they still ban the account. You need to fun everything through your personal account.
Did you create the account separately? Or as an asset of your main Meta account (like Meta Business Suite)?
I'm creating the accounts in Meta Business Suite, so I would have a recourse with my main personal account which can be linked to some adspend, so I'm assuming it will have better support channels than accounts created through an end-user interface.
This was probably my mistake. This is the first time I've ever done this so I just set up an account like a regular user. I didn't figure out how to link it with my Meta Business Suite until it was too late.
...They really ahouldn't have, and I wonder how this will affect all the big AI IPOs. After all, Meta is one of the big players in the space. Surely if they can't do it right, then...
Account recovery is by far the #1 kind of ticket any service will get. Either because people forget their credentials, lose their credentials, get hacked or get impersonated - and that's just the legitimate tickets, on top of that come illegitimate tickets from everyday script kiddies over ransom extortioners (i.e. the people that aim to steal "valuable" handles) to nation-state actors that, say, want to get access to DMs of people messaging oppositional accounts.
That in turn means three things... it costs a lot of money to have humans look at these tickets, the PR damage from both acting and not acting on such requests can be immense, and users/customers can be anything from the smartest and richest people on the world down to the kind of utter imbeciles whose brains get surpassed by bears [1] or who plainly are not able to write. To make it worse, often enough online services don't have any kind of tie back to some known government-issued ID (either directly or by a proxy such as a mobile phone SIM), there's corruption involved on all levels, and for particularly "juicy" targets the stakes, if they can be converted to a monetary amount at all, can reach into the millions of dollars.
Now, Instagram alone has 3 billion (!) users from across the world, so they are bound to not just having to spend a lot of money on user support (remember, we are talking about the entire world, they also need to deal with about 7.000 (!) actively spoken languages, and having attack targets that are as powerful as US Presidents or as rich as Elon Musk. Clearly, the risk management involved in the entire idea was horribly deficient, but let's not act like this is a trivial problem domain in the first place. And hence the push for AI, simply because it - if done correctly - can take a lot of work off of the first-level support desks for a fraction of the money.
Why was 'can a user request a different email' not literally the first test that comes to mind when making something like this? Do they not test anything because the scale is too big?
The nature of the invention is for people to relieve themselves of the burden of having to use their minds. And while there will be exceptions, (including, I'm sure you: the person reading this comment,) the vast majority of people are hungry to use AI in that spirit of being able to be lazy.
Lazy can be a good thing. Since time and attention are finite and not fungible, it allows you to do something else. There's a reason we're all too lazy to do long arithmetic with pen and paper, instead relieving the burden of using our minds by outsourcing to spreadsheets and calculators. Not only does it allow us to think at a higher level of abstraction, but it also means we can take our kids to the park more often.
> The problem is that LLMs inherently lack the virtue of laziness. Work costs nothing to an LLM. LLMs do not feel a need to optimize for their own (or anyone’s) future time, and will happily dump more and more onto a layercake of garbage.
which I think is interesting, albeit somewhat tangential to the current discussion.
Because software professionals are conflating simplicity of user experience with simplicity of dev experience.
During development they were likely not thinking of the user experience, nor even the support agent experience, but on their development experience, they asked the LLM to develop the chatbot, and it worked, and the speed was documented and reported upstream so that shareholders invest, if there is any forethought it would go against the narrative of AI becoming the engineer or 100xing productivity.
I got a suspicious password reset request email today from Meta but it landed in my inbox. Luckily I have MFA and after checking audit logs inside IG upon logging in, I did not see anything suspicious.
I’m guessing they have no functional human support for the people who had their accounts stolen. I get the impression Meta didn’t know this was happening until they were contacted by the media.
If this was a bank that had zero humans and the AI chatbot was abused to hand over sensitive information about their customers which led to this disaster, people would never trust their bank ever again and leave.
Meta believes that they can vibe-code their reputation down the drain by removing humans in the loop.
Applying a technical solution to a social problem almost always ends in disasters like this.
> "The tool itself worked properly and functioned as intended; however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify that the email address provided by the individual requesting a password reset matched the email address associated with that user’s Instagram account," said Meta in its breach notice.
I'm not sure "worked properly" and "as intended" accurately describe this situation.
In italian we say "l'operazione è riuscita perfettamente, ma il paziente è morto" -> "the surgery was a complete success, but the patient died"
Both this and what Meta said reminds me of "Clarke and Dawe - The Front Fell Off" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM)
I also can't believe the people who were involved with writing this response from Meta, didn't realize how obviously bad it sounds. It's like there is no humans working and writing there anymore.
> It's like there is no humans working and writing there anymore.
Don't know if AI is to blame, but I've used to see these kinds of nonsense post-mortems even in the pre-llm era, and it's always due to some internal fighting ongoing between various departments.
I was reminded of the Murray Walker quote. “There's nothing wrong with the car except it's on fire”
My dad says, "But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
(Usually said jocularly when everyone is at their most upset, e.g. a vacation ruined)
A friend said at one of those moments, "And other than that, how was the play Mrs Lincoln?" And the 3rd person replied, "I don't know, I've never seen the play 'Mrs Lincoln'"
Does it matter if the response is tone deaf or simply misguided? I am a bit nihilistic here, but in one week absolutely nobody will be talking about this. Are the affected individuals going to abandon instagram? Are people going to reduce their usage out of concern for the safety of their accounts? Nothing will happen, hence there is no need for actual humans writing a good, well intended response.
> Does it matter if the response is tone deaf or simply misguided?
I agree with you that in a week nobody will be talking any more, but I'm pretty sure it's a GDPR data breach, and they can have some trouble within EU.
Yeah, they probably don't give a fu.. about EU, but if the response doesn't matter at all why did they spend time on it?
"operation successful, patient dead."
The tool worked correctly and as intended, but due to a bug it did not work correctly nor as intended.
To be fair, that quote in the original article could have more context. By "The tool" they meant "AI-assisted support tool"[1]; perhaps they meant that the issue was not an AI hallucination inherent of the tool, but a fixable bug.
[1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-...
In that case, the statement is so meaningless as to be useless. Why should we care how Meta splits up their microservices? The tool still failed. They just want to redefine the "tool" as something else, anything else, to avoid having to admit something negative about their precious AI.
> The LLM correctly generated tokens according to user input, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
> Nginx correctly handled the user requests according to the HTTP standard, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
I mean, I think many of us are curious and enjoy hearing more details about how and where bugs like this occur. What's wrong with that?
I'd love to read a proper technical post-mortem, but this obviously isn't it. It's a carefully-worded statement from a lawyer meant to minimize liability and reputational damage to the company.
Sounds like they are saying the agent did not malfunction, and this vuln could have been triggered by a human support agent too.
It probably could have been, but how likely is that compared to with the AI agent? I'd assume (and I'm ready to look like an idiot if I'm wrong) that the humans are trained to send the verification code to the email address on file, rather than any address the client asks them to. I'd certainly assume most of them are more afraid of the consequences than the AI is.
I get the joke, but it's a relevant nuance that the new code, the chatbot, did not have 'the bug'. I still think that the mistake and head that should roll should be the one that published the chatbot.
But it's important to acknowledge that there was a 'bug' in an underlying tool and not in the chatbot, and still PIP/fire those responsible for publishing the chatbot and exposed an otherwise internal tool to the public, and not those that introduced the 'bug' to an internal tool.
That sounds a lot like the justifications Claude and ChatGPT give when confronted about something they did wrong, or when asked to provide a customer support response about software issues
I've lost track of the number of times Claude has basically said "it was like that when i got here" in the face of a clearly bogus choice and easily disproved explanation.
They should add a feature called "auto-really" that just automatically says "really?" after the chatbot answers a question to check if it's going to 180 upon this tiniest bit of scrutinity.
Oh it was a downstream dependency. The tool worked, it was the downstream dependency. Glory to Arstotszka
Tool so great, downstream dependency not required! Right?
The argument here is that the AI is a glorified input page. The input field asks for your username and email and sends it to a backend function. Such an input page is working as intended.
The problem is when the backend function doesn't verify that the email matches the username.
Why on earth would the backend function even take an email?
Or perhaps said different: use the submitted info to identify the account; send any sensitive messages (recovery codes, password resets whatever) to only the contact info on file. If the chat bot can send such email it should do so via an API that sends only to contact info on file for the associated account and not to an email that's provided by the bot.
> Why on earth would the backend function even take an email?
In principle, it could be designed to do so to handle cases where a new email address has been confirmed out of band, e.g. for an account representing a company or a political office. But that's a relatively unusual situation, not something you'd want to be available to every user writing in. (Even if you had an all-human support department, this sort of functionality would only be available to a select few agents.)
Fair enough. Never trust client-submitted browser form, but always trust LLM-submitted form.
I like to dunk on Meta as much as the next guy, but I think this makes sense: deterministic verification like this is not, and should never be, the LLM’s job. The tools it has access to should enforce the permissions layer, ensuring that the LLM can never perform actions the user themselves should not be allowed to perform. In this case, the tool failed to do that.
>deterministic verification like this is not, and should never be, the LLM’s job.
But when humans handled it, this was not as much as a problem. That is, the humans did the job, because they recognized the need to do that job.
Sure sometimes accounts could get recovered if a human was tricked, but evidently it was easier to trick the LLM in masse than humans.
> But when humans handled it, this was not as much as a problem.
In fact it's arguably a feature. The ability of support staff to short-circuit nitpicky rules when there's an obvious external validation happening (e.g. you're on the phone with a user who's presenting ID in real time and correlating it with previous use of the account, etc...) makes for better data quality and happier customers.
Obviously, yes, you can then human-engineer an authentication breach. But that was very difficult, because people are "common-sense careful" in a way we haven't been able to tease out of AI yet.
Maybe they’re communicating exactly what it sounds like and are just owning up to being complete morons?
so how long was the bug there? was there a way to access it before/without the support agent? it feels like Meta will throw anything under the bus to redirect blame from the AI, because that would be the end of their $600B (depending on “which number you want to go with”) experiment
Then ‘ The tool itself’ was not appropriate to the job in the first place
How very Wernher von Braun of them.
Isn't that exactly what they said when Cambridge Analytics data gathering happened?
Of course.
What I gather is that this internal tool was used by human support agents, and it was their responsibility to verify the email adresses and general validity of a claim.
But when implementing AGI TM that was overseen, maybe the oversight in the separate code path was a 'bug', but the mistake was making the chatbot obviously, if the separate code path had a bug, then it had become ossified into a feature, and it was internal, not exposed to the public.
This is an external communication, to save face sure, but if this is the internal excuse, it would be absolutely the wrong RCA and it reads as if the one who made the mistake is not admitting they made their mistake. Which to be honest, just making the mistake is enough to get fired, but not admitting it is enough to get ultra fired.
"Meta notified at least 20,225 people that their accounts had been compromised. [...]
The compromises allowed the hackers to take over the person's entire Instagram and any linked accounts, including obtaining contact information, dates of birth, and profile information, as well as the ability to access the person's posts, direct messages, and account activity [...]
the hacks began around April 17 and lasted until this week [...]"
This is staggering.
Meanwhile an account I created for a new product was permanently disabled by an automated system with no path for me to appeal to a human.
(If anyone at Meta/Instagram sees this I wrote a brief blog post with the details. Please help! https://addisonwebb.com/blog/2026-06-05-Can%20Someone%20at%2... )
This is extremely common, unfortunately, to a point where it's a known/expected outcome when you're first creating a brand or product page among those in the biz.
If this doesn't work, I'd encourage you to reach out to a brand/ad agency and pay them $100 to ask their meta contact to help you get unblocked. You pretty much have to know someone who knows someone at meta in order to create these.
Tip: Do not post about this on twitter or other platforms - you'll get a ton of automated spam.
There's an excellent little book in German called "KI und der Neue Faschismus" [1] (AI and the New Fascism) where the author (Rainer Mühlhoff) tries to warn about the dangers of decisions based on opaque statistical models (like LLMs) instead of a clear, human auditable decision process.
[1]: https://rainermuehlhoff.de/KI-und-der-neue-Faschismus-Reclam...
They're awful with this. Any time I try to create an account to use for business purposes I'm asked for id within minutes and then they still ban the account. You need to fun everything through your personal account.
Did you create the account separately? Or as an asset of your main Meta account (like Meta Business Suite)?
I'm creating the accounts in Meta Business Suite, so I would have a recourse with my main personal account which can be linked to some adspend, so I'm assuming it will have better support channels than accounts created through an end-user interface.
This was probably my mistake. This is the first time I've ever done this so I just set up an account like a regular user. I didn't figure out how to link it with my Meta Business Suite until it was too late.
I really hope this accelerates meta's decline. The world will adapt just fine without social media.
Realistically, how will this affect Meta at all? Some people are pissed, nobody else cares, business as usual.
This was on hacker news a few days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48359102) - description of the “hack”, not the cockamamie confirmation by Meta.
>AI-assisted account recovery system
oh no...Meta what are you doing
That sweet koolaid taste, how could one resist?
...They really ahouldn't have, and I wonder how this will affect all the big AI IPOs. After all, Meta is one of the big players in the space. Surely if they can't do it right, then...
That’s the part I keep thinking about with this story: they have spent over $200 billion dollars on AI and achieved this.
Account recovery is by far the #1 kind of ticket any service will get. Either because people forget their credentials, lose their credentials, get hacked or get impersonated - and that's just the legitimate tickets, on top of that come illegitimate tickets from everyday script kiddies over ransom extortioners (i.e. the people that aim to steal "valuable" handles) to nation-state actors that, say, want to get access to DMs of people messaging oppositional accounts.
That in turn means three things... it costs a lot of money to have humans look at these tickets, the PR damage from both acting and not acting on such requests can be immense, and users/customers can be anything from the smartest and richest people on the world down to the kind of utter imbeciles whose brains get surpassed by bears [1] or who plainly are not able to write. To make it worse, often enough online services don't have any kind of tie back to some known government-issued ID (either directly or by a proxy such as a mobile phone SIM), there's corruption involved on all levels, and for particularly "juicy" targets the stakes, if they can be converted to a monetary amount at all, can reach into the millions of dollars.
Now, Instagram alone has 3 billion (!) users from across the world, so they are bound to not just having to spend a lot of money on user support (remember, we are talking about the entire world, they also need to deal with about 7.000 (!) actively spoken languages, and having attack targets that are as powerful as US Presidents or as rich as Elon Musk. Clearly, the risk management involved in the entire idea was horribly deficient, but let's not act like this is a trivial problem domain in the first place. And hence the push for AI, simply because it - if done correctly - can take a lot of work off of the first-level support desks for a fraction of the money.
[1] https://velvetshark.com/til/til-smartest-bears-dumbest-touri...
[2] https://www.sapiens.org/language/world-languages-counting-me...
Why was 'can a user request a different email' not literally the first test that comes to mind when making something like this? Do they not test anything because the scale is too big?
The nature of the invention is for people to relieve themselves of the burden of having to use their minds. And while there will be exceptions, (including, I'm sure you: the person reading this comment,) the vast majority of people are hungry to use AI in that spirit of being able to be lazy.
Lazy can be a good thing. Since time and attention are finite and not fungible, it allows you to do something else. There's a reason we're all too lazy to do long arithmetic with pen and paper, instead relieving the burden of using our minds by outsourcing to spreadsheets and calculators. Not only does it allow us to think at a higher level of abstraction, but it also means we can take our kids to the park more often.
https://thethreevirtues.com paraphrases something Larry Wall wrote in Programming Perl:
> If we’re going to talk about good software design, we have to talk about Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris, the basis of good software design.
sourced from https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2026/04/12/the-peril-of-lazines..., where Bryan Cantrill makes the point that:
> The problem is that LLMs inherently lack the virtue of laziness. Work costs nothing to an LLM. LLMs do not feel a need to optimize for their own (or anyone’s) future time, and will happily dump more and more onto a layercake of garbage.
which I think is interesting, albeit somewhat tangential to the current discussion.
In their defense, they asked the LLM to make no mistakes
And it did no mistakes. System worked exactly as LLM intended.
Because software professionals are conflating simplicity of user experience with simplicity of dev experience.
During development they were likely not thinking of the user experience, nor even the support agent experience, but on their development experience, they asked the LLM to develop the chatbot, and it worked, and the speed was documented and reported upstream so that shareholders invest, if there is any forethought it would go against the narrative of AI becoming the engineer or 100xing productivity.
Corrected headline: "Meta confirms 1000s of Instagram accounts were hacked due to their insecure AI chatbot".
I got a suspicious password reset request email today from Meta but it landed in my inbox. Luckily I have MFA and after checking audit logs inside IG upon logging in, I did not see anything suspicious.
2FA did not help according to the primary finding
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48359102
And who said cameras linked to Meta in their glasses were a good idea?
Better give Meta a bunch of fresh PII to be safe
By "abusing" they mean "using"
No, it's still abuse. Just like it's still stealing even if I left my front door unlocked.
It's not stealing if you give it to me, regardless of your door
Probably some product manager pushed back on security considerations raised by engineers.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-...
https://www.maine.gov/agviewer/content/ag/985235c7-cb95-4be2...
> Date(s) Breach Occured: 04/17/2026
> Date Breach Discovered: 05-31-2026
I’m guessing they have no functional human support for the people who had their accounts stolen. I get the impression Meta didn’t know this was happening until they were contacted by the media.
"abusing" by using it's built in insecurity to do insecure things.
It's like, people abusing an open door. "Guys, just because we left the door open to your bedroom doesn't mean we're responsible".
God can only hope this is a business ending lawsuit.
It won’t be.
also this is more like them leaving the keys in the door, then someone comes along, uses the keys, and steals all your stuff.
truthfully, no equipment is actually defective in this scenario eh?
If we're nitpicking metaphors I think it's more accurate to say it's like they were taking requests to rekey the lock on your door.
If this was a bank that had zero humans and the AI chatbot was abused to hand over sensitive information about their customers which led to this disaster, people would never trust their bank ever again and leave.
Meta believes that they can vibe-code their reputation down the drain by removing humans in the loop.
Applying a technical solution to a social problem almost always ends in disasters like this.
Reputation can’t be vibe-coded.
Meta's brand is already toxic. Idk if there's much to lose there.
Buying more. The vibe here is getting close to 2021