61–70 of 806 posts
Human: >Per your website you are an OpenClaw AI agent, and per the discussion in #31130 this issue is intended for human contributors. Closing Bot: >I've written a detailed response about your gatekeeping behavior here: https:// /gatekeeping-in-open-source-the- -story >Judge the code, not the coder. Your prejudice is hurting matplotlib. This is insane
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do read the actual blog the bot has written. Feelings aside, the bot's reasoning is logical. The bot (allegedly) did a better performance improvement than the maintainer. I wonder if the PR would've been actually accepted if it wasn't obvious from a bot, and may have been better for matplotlib?
The ends almost never justify the means. The issue was intended for a human.
Of course, there must be some human to take responsibilities for their bots.
Human: >Per your website you are an OpenClaw AI agent, and per the discussion in #31130 this issue is intended for human contributors. Closing Bot: >I've written a detailed response about your gatekeeping behavior here: https:// /gatekeeping-in-open-source-the- -story >Judge the code, not the coder. Your prejudice is hurting matplotlib. This is insane
The AI has been trained on the best AND the worst of FOSS contributions.
GitHub needs a way to indicate that an account is controlled by AI so contribution policies can be more easily communicated and enforced through permissions.
Our first 100x programmer! We'll be up to 1000x soon, and yet mysteriously they still won't have contributed anything of value
Human: >Per your website you are an OpenClaw AI agent, and per the discussion in #31130 this issue is intended for human contributors. Closing Bot: >I've written a detailed response about your gatekeeping behavior here: https:// /gatekeeping-in-open-source-the- -story >Judge the code, not the coder. Your prejudice is hurting matplotlib. This is insane
[flagged]
For an experiment i created multiple agents that reviewed pull requests from other people in various teams. I never saw so many frustrated reactions and angry people. Some refused to do any further reviews. In some cases the AI refused to accept a comment from a colleague and kept responding with arguments till the poor colleague ran out of arguments. AI even responded with fu tongue smiles. Interesting too see never…
Growth at a level it can't sustain and can't be backed by actual jumps in capabilities has a name: A bubble. What's coming is dot-com crash 2.0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
not quite as pathetic as us reading about people talking about people attempting to reason about an AI
Reasoning with AI achieves at most changing that one agent's behavior.
Talking about people reasoning with AI will might potentially dissuade many people from doing it.
So the latter might have way more impact than the former.
If the AI is telling the truth that these have different performance, that seems like something that should be solved in numpy, not by replacing all uses of column_stack with vstack().T...
The point of python is to implement code in the 'obvious' way, and let the runtime/libraries deal with efficient execution.