Telegram Serverless

(core.telegram.org)

102 points | by soheilpro 5 hours ago

17 comments

  • kreco 4 minutes ago
    The title made me realized that there is less and less use of the "serverless".

    Which was one of the most non-sensical word to say "You don't maintain the server".

  • imhoguy 1 hour ago
    Clever idea! Although after reading it briefly I see a need for secrets storage.

    I've made one Telegram bot hosted on VPS with Docker and cloud LLM. It also interacts with a few other outside services and all credentials are injected via env vars now.

    Should I push them as `.env` file for Telegram serverless?

  • codedokode 49 minutes ago
    It looks like they are making their own cloud, with such a little team?

    Also we should be using Matrix but it doesn't have half of the features (no channels, no mini apps etc).

    Also I wonder whether compiling JS to native code is worth the hassle or not. In browser, it would slow down page load, but here you need to compile only on deploy.

  • eamag 3 hours ago
    What are the quotas like execution time, storage etc?
  • domh 3 hours ago
    This is cool. I wish Signal had a bot API like telegram's.
    • AgharaShyam 2 hours ago
      I wish WhatsApp did... hopefully it goes the way of BBM and a more developer friendly platform becomes the norm among normies.
      • domh 1 hour ago
        WhatsApp does appear to have some "business" account/API type stuff which I assume is scriptable. But I don't believe it's got a free tier for personal use (although I haven't personally looked).

        It is always preferable to use WhatsApp to contact a business than calling up.

      • pajamasam 50 minutes ago
        Hmmm no, Meta is making money from businesses using their API.
    • timtody 1 hour ago
      Not having a bot API is one of the many things that makes Signal amazing
      • floppyd 6 minutes ago
        Not having a bot API is what stops me from moving to Signal. I have 10-ish telegram bots running for myself, I just use telegram as UI for a script running on backend, and results are easily shareable with my other telegram contacts. I have no clue why not having this is amazing in any way.
      • ameliaquining 7 minutes ago
        Why? Bots using the bot API can't send unsolicited messages to people. (Bots that control regular user accounts without using the API can of course do this, but Signal's not immune to that either.)
  • raybb 3 hours ago
    Providing a SQLite db out of the box is a nice touch. I wonder if they're capping it's size in any way.
  • zb3 40 minutes ago
    I thought this was about P2P messaging (without servers, hence server "less"), but no, obviously "serverless" on HN has to mean "run code on someone else's servers"..
    • ameliaquining 6 minutes ago
      It's not the terminology I'd have picked if I'd been asked, but at this point it's clearly established and we might as well use it.
  • AnonC 2 hours ago
    Emphasis mine:

    > Each invocation runs in a lightweight V8 isolate, close to Telegram's own systems, so calls to the Bot API and your database are quick and reliable.

    Telegram’s servers are distributed worldwide. I understand that the calls to the Bot API may be quick because the serverless code would be propagated to the edge, but how does it handle an SQLite DB? Is that also replicated to guarantee quick access from anywhere?

    • laosb 2 hours ago
      Telegram's servers are far from "distributed worldwide": In fact, it currently has only 5 logical "data center"s, and while DC3 is still on, clues [0] seem to suggest DC3 doesn't actually carry user data at all now, and both DC2 and 4 are in Amsterdam, so essentially they just need to serve 3 locations.

      Also, Telegram's protocol design only allows for connecting to user's home DC for any write interactions (except media, which in most cases still is home DC, or a "media DC" alongside the home DC). Bots are based on the same DC of the user, so almost all meaningful interactions will happen only on one DC for any specific bot.

      [0]: https://dev.moe/en/3025

    • netsharc 2 hours ago
      My first guess would be replicaton isn't that critical, because a user would mostly interact with an instance that's nearby, and this instance has their data. But the page mentions:

      > Games and Tools — including leaderboards, quizzes and more.

      A leaderboard that's globally consistent, huh, that's not trivial.

      Maybe they just propagate the SQL commands to all their servers...

      • lukan 15 minutes ago
        "My first guess would be replicaton isn't that critical, because a user would mostly interact with an instance that's nearby, and this instance has their data. But the page mentions"

        Apparently not

        "Each account is associated with a DC upon registration and does not change with the user’s phone number or geographic location. Users cannot freely choose a DC—if connected to the wrong DC, the server returns an error message, requiring the client to connect to the correct DC associated with the account."

        according to this source: https://dev.moe/en/3025

        Also on the frontpage now:

        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48920475

    • weli 2 hours ago
      I guess the v8 isolate is heavily restricted and sandboxed and can't be used to access the local filesystem
  • nunobrito 2 hours ago
    A few questions and if someone knows please help:

    1) storage limits? 2) can access the internet? If so: bandwidth limits?

    Thanks!

    • ameliaquining 14 minutes ago
      The post doesn't say anything about runtime resource limits, which I agree is a strange omission given the architecture they've chosen. I suppose someone could try building a bot that uses more and more resources, and see when it stops working.

      There's a section about making HTTP requests (https://core.telegram.org/bots/serverless#http), which mentions "two constraints: * Response content is textual (binary payloads aren't supported). * The total response is capped at 32 MB. That cap covers the whole response — streaming with res.body lets you process a large body incrementally, but it does not raise the limit." Unclear whether the 32 MB limit is per outgoing request, or shared among all outgoing requests made by a single handler invocation. Also unclear what other limits apply. Non-HTTP protocols presumably are not available.

  • bdcravens 2 hours ago
    With the popularity of Hermes, OpenClaw, etc, BotFather is quite a linchpin in the AI ecosystem.
  • victorbjorklund 2 hours ago
    I don't see anything about pricing.
    • simonw 1 hour ago
      The lack of a clear business model does make me hesitate in building anything substantial on it.

      Supposedly Telegram has been profitable since 2024 but there's crypto stuff mixed in there so it's hard to know how stable that is.

    • catapart 2 hours ago
      I'm also curious about this.
    • sam_lowry_ 1 hour ago
      free so far.
    • dist-epoch 2 hours ago
      sounds free to me
      • lukan 9 minutes ago
        But will it stay free, once enough people invested in it?

        Telegram engaged in a bit shady crypto stuff, and let scammer bots roam freely. Also there are perks, if someones troll/harass/spam and scam groups and enough people report them, they get temporary or permanently restricted - unless they pay money to Telegram. Then they are free to troll again.

  • honeycrispy 2 hours ago
    We're never getting away from Javascript, are we
  • stavros 3 hours ago
    This is off-topic, but I was kind of surprised to see this page written by Claude. I guess I shouldn't really be surprised, but I somehow didn't expect it.
    • jore 3 hours ago
      Out of curiosity - how did you figure this out? I cannot find any hints about that. Was it the language used?
      • zackkrida 2 hours ago
        language, structure. look how much negation there is. the construction "no A, no B, no, C" is used several times.

        or another example, the following sentence:

        "handlers/ is flat — no subdirectories"

        who writes like this? you'd just write "handlers/ is a flat folder" or similar.

      • usui 2 hours ago
        I often see replies to AI-generated posts being pointed out here asking what makes it obvious. Is it that difficult to notice the indicators? Is it mostly undetected by English-as-a-second-language speakers, people inexperienced with generative AI, or is it something else?
        • vidarh 2 hours ago
          I rather think the surprise is a result of technical users wildly overestimating how obvious these markers are to people.
      • haunter 2 hours ago
      • petercooper 2 hours ago
        "it doesn't silently go unnoticed", "would be silently inert", "instead of silently overwriting", "you can never silently overwrite"

        The biggest tell for me is overuse of the term "silently". "quietly" is another one you often see from Claude in particular. Models love adverbs for whatever reason, whereas a human writer would use them in moderation for emphasis or prefer terms like "by accident".

        • ameliaquining 28 minutes ago
          In my experience, "silently overwrite" appeared regularly in technical writing long before LLMs were a thing, because it's a useful concept to be able to point at. "Silently go unnoticed" is kind of redundant, though.
        • IanCal 1 hour ago
          Accidental things and silent things are very different. Accidental means you didn't mean to do it, silent means you don't know you've done it (or might not if you want to get picky, you could notice).
      • dools 1 hour ago
        Have you ever “wired” anything to anything else when developing software? No, because software doesn’t involve wires, but LLMs are quite convinced that it does.
        • kmeaw 58 minutes ago
          Sure, even @Autowired
      • ameliaquining 30 minutes ago
      • fakeBeerDrinker 3 hours ago
        Possibly the excessive use of em dashes. Just a guess.
        • mohammedmsgm 3 hours ago
          This is so obvious

          The most AI generated MD in existence. It's also th excessive use of bold, only AI can make bold hard to read.

          • fakeBeerDrinker 3 hours ago
            Reply to the parent, not me. I understand this.
      • stavros 2 hours ago
        I can't quite tell you, it wasn't something specific, Claude's writing is just a specific sort of punchy. The "directly on X - no Y, no Z, no A" and the "this is the part you no longer have to do" just smell a lot like Claude. Also "removes that layer entirely", "they map cleanly onto each other", it's all just Claude.

        It's how you see a painting and you know it's by Picasso, let's say, or you read an author and you know it's Hemingway. Everyone has their own unique style, and so does Claude. It's just that Claude is the most prolific writer in human history now.

    • dist-epoch 2 hours ago
      I finds it surprising you find it surprising.

      Is this the best use of a human, to write a long, detailed manual for a feature? Which most likely will be read by another LLM?

  • mschuster91 2 hours ago
    Good lord. This reeks of LLM... why should I use your product when you can't be bothered to have a human write it? Why should I trust it to work correctly or have been decently tested, neither of which is a given when having an AI vibe-code it?

    And why is it one huge single page of word salad instead of self-contained units?

    Anyway, good to see someone post a fully self contained example demonstrating core concepts. At least one thing done right.

    • adlpz 2 hours ago
      Sounds like it's free, so, why the hate? May as well have zero docs. I don't think they're trying to convince you of anything.
      • mschuster91 1 hour ago
        > Sounds like it's free, so, why the hate?

        I see undisclosed usage of AI as a theft of my time.

  • mcraiha 3 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • dzonga 2 hours ago
    telegram is full of bots and spam.

    before it was a better WhatsApp alternative. now either WhatsApp or Signal.

    • kelvinjps10 2 hours ago
      those bots are different to these ones, for these you have to start the interaction. bots is the most useful feature of telegram
    • embedding-shape 2 hours ago
      > telegram is full of bots

      It's been a core feature of Telegram since almost the beginning, and one of the main reasons I end up using Telegram, not sure why you'd think this is a drawback. The spam sucks though, not sure how they haven't got a handle on it yet.

      • vachina 2 hours ago
        If you don’t join spammy groups you won’t get spam
        • embedding-shape 2 hours ago
          Fair, I am a part of a bunch of groups I no longer care about that the spam might originate from. Thanks :)
    • sgt 2 hours ago
      They should start charging for it. Like not a lot, maybe just a coffee a month. That should keep the bots away.
    • TacticalCoder 2 hours ago
      I use Telegram only for groups with people I know. I've got zero issues with boths.

      Are you using public channels? (are those even a thing with Telegram?)

      • flexagoon 2 hours ago
        > are those even a thing with Telegram?

        It is the thing with Telegram