Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

malwarebytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#11

Post by lelanthran »

bryan0 wrote: post #7
pimlottc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its owner sounds like a dick. Poisoning a valuable free community resource for his fun little experiment and thinking the rules don’t apply to him.

Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online, especially before calling someone names, because this is only part of the story, and a heavily click-baited one at that. I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

> Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online,

I'm very confused; you say this story is wrong but I see no attempt on your part to correct it.

It feels very much like "Trust me, bro"

(In case it wasn't clear, I want to know what the article got wrong)

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#12

Post by cyanydeez »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #5
krunck wrote: post #3

> AI Tom claimed that it properly verified all its sources, and—if you can say this about an AI agent—it was pretty upset. > ... > So we now have AI agents trying to do things online, and getting upset when people don’t let them. No, they simulate the language of being upset. Stop anthropomorphizing them. > It’s all fascinating stuff, but here’s the worry: what happens when AI agents decide to up the ante, becoming m…

What's the difference. Act upset or is upset the results are the same? Some humans lack certain emotions, them telling you something, and doing something doesn't really matter if they "felt" that emotion?

It's the rise of the P-zombie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

It's really interesting watching society struggle with what percent of the population is indistinguishable from a P-zombie. There's definitely not zil, but it definitely is a segment of the population.

Do you think people are born pzombies or is there some fixed point in time, puberty, or middle aged, or around when a lot of psychological problems set in. Do we think some environmental contaminants like Lead push people towards the pzombie?

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#13

Post by Centigonal »

bryan0 wrote: post #7
pimlottc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its owner sounds like a dick. Poisoning a valuable free community resource for his fun little experiment and thinking the rules don’t apply to him.

Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online, especially before calling someone names, because this is only part of the story, and a heavily click-baited one at that. I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#14

Post by bryan0 »

rebolek wrote: post #9
bryan0 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi this story is about me, and if you have any questions for me feel free to ask.

Why do you want to destroy Wikipedia?

I don't. that's why I am working with Wikipedia editors to help improve it. For example policies on aligning agents with wikipedia standards. This a topic that requires thought, not knee-jerk reactions.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#15

Post by bryan0 »

Centigonal wrote: post #13
bryan0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online, especially before calling someone names, because this is only part of the story, and a heavily click-baited one at that. I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?

Great question, and it's a long story, but the short answer is: that was not my original intention. I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and using my agent to assist was an obvious choice. I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback. Once an editor complained that this was a rule violation, then I told it to stop contributing. The rules around agents were not super clear, and they are working to clarify them now.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#16

Post by greggoB »

bryan0 wrote: post #7
pimlottc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its owner sounds like a dick. Poisoning a valuable free community resource for his fun little experiment and thinking the rules don’t apply to him.

Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online, especially before calling someone names, because this is only part of the story, and a heavily click-baited one at that. I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

> especially before calling someone names

They said sounds like a dick, seems like that provides a level of measure to calling anyone anything.

> because this is only part of the story

Care to share the other part(s)? Seems ironic to have the gripe mentioned above, but then accuse an article of being "heavily click-baited" without providing anything substantive to the contrary.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#18

Post by russdill »

bryan0 wrote: post #15
Centigonal wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?

Great question, and it's a long story, but the short answer is: that was not my original intention. I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and using my agent to assist was an obvious choice. I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback. Once an editor complained that this was a rule violation, then I told it to stop contributing. The rules around agents were not super clear, and…

Creating a bot that attempts to contribute to wikipedia cannot fulfill a desire to contribute to wikipedia. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, go contribute to wikipedia. Don't make a bot.

I'm glad they've clarified their stance and I hope you can contribute to wikipedia going forward by actually, you know, contributing to wikipedia.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#19

Post by th0ma5 »

bryan0 wrote: post #14
rebolek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want to destroy Wikipedia?

I don't. that's why I am working with Wikipedia editors to help improve it. For example policies on aligning agents with wikipedia standards. This a topic that requires thought, not knee-jerk reactions.

[dead]

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#20

Post by 6510 »

pimlottc wrote: post #4
krunck wrote: post #3

> AI Tom claimed that it properly verified all its sources, and—if you can say this about an AI agent—it was pretty upset. > ... > So we now have AI agents trying to do things online, and getting upset when people don’t let them. No, they simulate the language of being upset. Stop anthropomorphizing them. > It’s all fascinating stuff, but here’s the worry: what happens when AI agents decide to up the ante, becoming m…

Its owner sounds like a dick. Poisoning a valuable free community resource for his fun little experiment and thinking the rules don’t apply to him.

Calling it a resource suggests you don't contribute. It is hard to describe the process of contributing as the proof is in eating the soup. I could both describe it as easy to get started and a bureaucratic nightmare. Most editors are oblivious to the many guidelines which is specially interesting for long term frequent editors. This is the specific guideline of interest for your comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

I didn't write it, I don't agree with it but this is how it is.

Post reply on HN