It looks like the status/need-triage label was removed
142 points
2 hours ago
| 10 comments
| github.com
| HN
PyWoody
1 hour ago
[-]
Heh. This reminds me of the time when our newly hired "Salesforce Expert" improved our support queue:

  Every time Support received a new email, a ticket in Salesforce would be created and assigned to Support
  
  Every time Support was assigned a new ticket, Salesforce would send a notification email
The worst part is he wouldn't admit to the mistake and it took us forever to find where he buried the rule.
reply
bedatadriven
48 minutes ago
[-]
I can remember something like this a few years ago when a customer emailed our helpdesk with their own internal IT support desk in copy. Our helpdesk at the time sent a complete new email acknowledging the request, which the customer's desk ALSO acknowledged in a new thread...

I think it took us a good hour and a few hundred tickets to get the helpdesks to stop fighting with each other!

reply
pixl97
13 minutes ago
[-]
Ah, mailing loops are great.

I remember working for an ISP in the mid 90s. We never really had problems with 1 to 1 mailing loops bouncing back and forth, but we ended up with a large circular mailing loop involving a mailing list, and bad addresses on it getting bounced to the previous server which sent a reply to the mailing list, which got bounced and sent to everyone in the group which caused someone else's mailbox to fill up that was in a forward, which for some reason sent a bounce to the mailing list that really started to set off the explosive growth.

Needless to say the bounces seemed to be growing quadratically and overwhelmed our medium sized ISP, a decent sized college, and a large ISPs mailing system in less time than anyone could figure out how to get it to stop.

reply
pousada
51 minutes ago
[-]
I only used salesforce once (was “forced” to use it haha) and it was mind boggling how anyone would ever want to use it or even become an expert in using it.

I’d rather track everything in a giant excel tyvm

reply
embedding-shape
35 minutes ago
[-]
> it was mind boggling how anyone would ever want to use it or even become an expert in using it.

As in a lot of cases, the answer is money. If you have expertise in Salesforce, you can get paid a lot, especially if the company you contract/freelance for is in an "emergency" which, because they use Salesforce, they'll eventually be. As long as you get the foot in the door, you'll have a steady stream of easy money. It fucking sucks though, the entire ecosystem, not for the weak of heart.

reply
DANmode
2 minutes ago
[-]
You become an expert in using SalesForce, or SAP, for the same reason you get a medical license in the US.

There’s a limited number of you who are willing to traverse that gauntlet of abuse, so you know you’ll always have work.

reply
GuinansEyebrows
29 minutes ago
[-]
nobody who actually uses salesforce for daily work chose it. it's sold directly to CIO/CTOs as a one-stop shop for CRM, ticketing, reports and biz dev, who may occasionally use it for reporting (but more often get their staff to provide the reports directly to them). everybody stuck having to use it to actually track work just has to suffer with it.
reply
wrs
15 minutes ago
[-]
Or in my case, it was sold directly to the CMO, and as the CTO I was stuck with it!
reply
GuinansEyebrows
14 seconds ago
[-]
you won't get off that easily in the eyes of your subordinates :)
reply
bArray
1 minute ago
[-]
Maybe 20 years ago... As a student, the school had an email server that allowed rules to be set. You could set an email to be sent as a result of another email.

IT were not stupid though, and set a series of rules:

1. You cannot have a rule trigger to email yourself.

2. You cannot reply to an email triggered by a rule.

3. You have ~50MB max of emails (which was a lot at the time).

Playing around one lunch, my friend had setup a "not in office" automated reply, I setup a rule to reply to any emails within our domain with a "not in office", but put their name in TO, CC and BCC. It turns out that this caused rule #2 not to trigger. After setting up the same rule on my friend's email, and sending a single email, the emails fired approximately one every 30 seconds.

A few hours later we returned to our email boxes to realise that there were thousands and thousands of emails. At some point we triggered rule #3, which in turn sent an email "out of space", with a small embedded school logo. Each one of these emails triggered our email rule, which in turn triggered an email "could not send message", again with an embedded logo. We desperately tried to delete all of the emails, but it just made way for more emails. We eventually had to abandon our efforts to delete the emails, and went to class.

About an hour later, the email server failed. Several hours later all domain logins failed. It turned out that logins were also run on the email server.

The events were then (from what I was told by IT):

* Students could not save their work to their network directory.

* New students could not login.

* Teachers could not login to take registers or use the SMART white boards.

* IT try to login to the server, failure.

* IT try to reboot the server, failure.

* IT take the server apart and attempt to mount the disk - for whatever reason, also failure.

* IT rebuild the entire server software.

* IT try to restore data from a previous backup, failure. Apparently the backup did not complete.

* IT are forced to recover from a working backup from two weeks previous.

All from one little email rule. I was banned from using all computers for 6 months. When I finally did get access, there was a screen in the IT office that would show my display at all times when logged in. Sometimes IT would wiggle my mouse to remind me that they were there, and sometimes I would open up Notepad and chat to them.

P.S. Something happened on the IT system a year later, and they saw I was logged in. They ran to my class, burst through the door, screamed by username and dragged me away from the keyboard. My teacher was in quite some shock, and then even more shocked to learn that I had caused the outage about a year earlier.

reply
trgn
29 minutes ago
[-]
> and it took us forever to find where he buried the rule.

Salesforce is such an ugly beast

reply
pinkmuffinere
1 hour ago
[-]
lol, that's amazing. Things like this make me both angry (how could they be so dumb!), and empathetic (what is the rest of their life like?)
reply
embedding-shape
2 hours ago
[-]
It's easy to miss, but in the middle of the page:

> 4609 remaining items

Seems gemini-cli and gemini-cli didn't understand who themselves were, so they though someone else added/removed the label, which it tried to correct, which the other then tried to correct, which the other...

Considering that that repository has what seems like ~10 longer term contributors, who probably get email notifications, together with a bunch of other people who get notifications about it, wonder how many emails were sent out because of this? If we just assume ten people get the emails, it's already 46K emails going out in under 24 hours...

Also, who pays for the inference of this gemini-cli? Clicking the "user" links to https://github.com/apps/gemini-cli, and it has a random GitHub user under "Developer", doesn't seem like it's a official Google project, so did someone pay for all of these inference calls here? That'd be a pretty sucky bill to pay...

reply
TACD
1 hour ago
[-]
reply
embedding-shape
1 hour ago
[-]
All opened the 15th of January though, same as the instance linked in the submission. Seems maybe more accurate to say "widespread issue" rather than "frequent issue", as it seems to only have happened at one occasion, but it had time to spam many issues on that day.
reply
hirsin
21 minutes ago
[-]
The owner is a Google employee, but for the sake of safety it should be owned by a real Google org. I'll ask them to migrate it to their OSS org.

Unfortunately the app creation flow on GitHub makes it impossible (for now) for a normal org user to create an app for the org, so apps end up getting created on personal accounts and become load bearing. We've got a work item to make it possible to give app creation rights to your org members, I've got it high on the priority list for the next six months.

Re:payment As I understand it each org that uses the gemini cli agent puts their api key in their actions secrets, which gets picked up and used to call Google inference APIs. So the org these comments are in is paying for the inference.

reply
Sophira
26 minutes ago
[-]
> did someone pay for all of these inference calls here?

Considering that these responses are all the exact same two replies in wording, and that this is a task which could be easily automated without AI, I seriously doubt that it's going to be caused by actual inference.

reply
eviks
1 hour ago
[-]
> Thank you for your understanding! × 4609
reply
sneak
45 minutes ago
[-]
“Everyone, just STOP PRESSING REPLY-ALL.”

It’s not just bots that fall into this trap.

reply
embedding-shape
34 minutes ago
[-]
The linked issue literally only have one bot falling into that trap...
reply
m0llusk
46 minutes ago
[-]
Some are saying there is no more room for junior employees in all of this, but it seems like these LLM spasms generate lots of disruption that would be at appropriate levels of complexity and priority for juniors to be handling.
reply
esafak
21 minutes ago
[-]
What if a junior with an LLM did this?
reply
philipwhiuk
51 minutes ago
[-]
> Considering that that repository has what seems like ~10 longer term contributors, who probably get email notifications, together with a bunch of other people who get notifications about it, wonder how many emails were sent out because of this? If we just assume ten people get the emails, it's already 46K emails going out in under 24 hours...

Unless GitHub are idiots they batch email updates to mitigate this

reply
jsheard
1 minute ago
[-]
Maybe things have improved in the last couple of years, but during the Great Unreal Engine Reply-All Incident they were most definitely not batched. Something like 62 million emails were sent out from a single PR.
reply
embedding-shape
34 minutes ago
[-]
Yeah, they probably do batching, but not by "day" intervals exactly, probably minute if not second. Still end up with a whole lot of emails, probably 50K+, within some hours.
reply
ryandrake
1 hour ago
[-]
A similar issue made HN last week, same repo, where an AI bot was having the same kind of argument with itself over and over on an issue. Someone mentioned: This sort of thing is why RAM is 800 bucks now.
reply
supernes
10 minutes ago
[-]
Finally an example of AI doing something useful. Imagine having to add and remove all those tags 4500+ times by hand!
reply
alwa
2 hours ago
[-]
This issue seems to involve Gemini-cli[bot] squabbling with itself, adding and removing the label from the issue (leaving contradictory explanation comments to itself each time) for a good 4,600 rounds
reply
add-sub-mul-div
1 hour ago
[-]
I don't lament the lack of flying cars because they don't seem practical, but I am disappointed that the future turned out to be this stupid.
reply
robertclaus
2 hours ago
[-]
Classic CI bug with a flair of LLM fun! We had something similar creep into our custom merge queue a few weeks back.
reply
embedding-shape
2 hours ago
[-]
What "classic CI bug" makes bots talk with each other forever? Been doing CI for as long as I've been a professional developer, and not even once I've had that issue.

I've made "reply bots" before, bunch of times, first time on IRC, and pretty much the second or third step is "Huh, probably this shouldn't be able to reply to itself, then it'll get stuck in a loop". But that's hardly a "classic CI bug", so don't think that is what you're referring to here right?

reply
btown
1 hour ago
[-]
If you’re making a bot in which there will be many sub-behaviors, it can be tempting to say “each sub-behavior should do whatever checks it needs, including basic checks for self-reply.”

And there lie dragons, because whether a tired or junior or (now) not-even-human engineer is writing new sub-behavior, it’s easy to assume that footguns either don’t exist or are prevented a layer up. There’s nothing more classic than that.

reply
embedding-shape
1 hour ago
[-]
I'm kind of understanding, I think, but not fully. Regardless of how you structure this bot, there will be one entrypoint for the webhooks/callbacks, right? Even if there is sub-behaviours, the incoming event is passing through something, or are we talking about "sub-bots" here that are completely independent and use different GitHub users and so on?

Otherwise I still don't see how you'd end up with your own bot getting stuck in a loop replying to itself, but maybe I'm misunderstanding how others are building these sort of bots.

reply
pixl97
5 minutes ago
[-]
All I can think of, and actually have seen is

1. Bot run a series of steps A through Z.

2. Step X is calling an external system that runs its own series of steps.

3. Some potential outcomes of said external system is if it detects some potential outcomes (errors, failed tests, whatever) is it kicks back an automated process that runs back through the bot/system where said system makes the same mistake again without awareness it's caught in a loop.

reply
Hamuko
1 hour ago
[-]
Yeah, a bot replying to itself is pretty poor design. It's one of the first things you do even with toy bots. You can even hardcode knowing itself, since usually you have an unchanging ID. A much more common problem is if someone deploys another bot, which will lead your bot into having an endless back-and-forth with it.
reply
embedding-shape
1 hour ago
[-]
> A much more common problem is if someone deploys another bot, which will lead your bot into having an endless back-and-forth with it.

This I'd understand, bit trickier since you're basically end up with a problem typical of distributed systems.

But one bot? One identity? One GitHub user? Seems really strange to miss something like that, as you say, it's one of the earlier things you tend to try when creating bots for chats and alike.

reply
keriati1
1 hour ago
[-]
Today github labels, tomorrow paperclips?
reply
a-dub
33 minutes ago
[-]
in the old days one would add and check for a loop detection token when loops like this could be driven by external systems... i wonder if today it would be as simple as adding "ensure you don't get stuck in any loops" to a prompt.

fwiw. doesn't look like gemini at all, the responses are perfectly canned... maybe just good old fashioned ci rules.

reply
vjekm
12 minutes ago
[-]
I also start all of my prompts with "solve the halting problem."
reply
amiga386
1 hour ago
[-]
Project admins setting up automation: https://youtu.be/B4M-54cEduo?t=102

The automation: https://youtu.be/GFiWEjCedzY?t=51

reply
minimaxir
2 hours ago
[-]
It's not wrong.
reply