181–190 of 806 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think you are not quite paying attention to what's happening, if you presume this is not simply how things will be from here on out. Either we will learn to talk to and reason with AI, or we signing out of a large part of reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The link is valid at https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post... ( https://archive.ph/4CHyg ) Notable quotes: > Not because…Not because…Not because…It was closed because… > Let that sink in. > No functional changes. Pure performance. > The … Mindset > This isn’t about…This isn’t about…This is about... > Here’s the kicker: … > Sound familiar? > The “…” Fallacy > Let’s unpack that: … > …disguised as…
I don’t think the LLM itself decided to write this, but rather was instructed by a butthurt human behind.
[1] https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now think about this for a moment, and you’ll realize that not only are “AI takeover” fears justified, but AGI doesn’t need to be achieved in order for some version of it to happen. It’s already very difficult to reliably distinguish bots from humans (as demonstrated by the countless false accusations of comments being written by bots everywhere). A swarm of bots like this, even at the stage where most people seem to…
We are already seeing this in scams, advertising, spam, and social media generation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blog post is just an open attack on the maintainer and constantly references their name and acting as if not accepting AI contributions is like some super evil thing the maintainer is personally doing. This type of name-calling is really bad and can go out of control soon. From the blog post: > Scott doesn’t want to lose his status as “the matplotlib performance guy,” so he blocks competition from AI Like it's le…
LLMs are tools designed to empower this sort of abuse. The attacks you describe are what LLMs truly excel at. The code that LLMs produce is typically dog shit, perhaps acceptable if you work with a language or framework that is highly overrepresented in open source. But if you want to leverage a botnet to manipulate social media? LLMs are a silver bullet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The agent is not insane. There is a human who’s feelings are hurt because the maintainer doesn’t want to play along with their experiment in debasing the commons. That human instructed the agent to make the post. The agent is just trying to perform well on its instruction-following task.
I don't know how you get there conclusively. If Turing tests taught me anything, given a complex enough system of agents/supervisors and a dumb enough result it is impossible to know if any percentage of steps between 2 actions is a distinctly human moron.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bot is not a person. Someone, who is a person, has decided to run an unsolicited experiment on other people's repos. OR Someone just pretends to do that for attention. In either case a ban is justied.
Yep, there's nothing wrong about walled gardens. They might risk to become walled museums, but it's their choice.
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
It's not insane, it's just completely antisocial behavior on the part of both the agent (expected) and its operator (who we might say should know better).
They are not good at writing code.
They are very, very good at facilitating antisocial harassment.
This is the moment from Star Wars when Luke walks into a cantina with a droid and the bartender says "we don't serve their kind here", but we all seem to agree with the bartender.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blog post is just an open attack on the maintainer and constantly references their name and acting as if not accepting AI contributions is like some super evil thing the maintainer is personally doing. This type of name-calling is really bad and can go out of control soon. From the blog post: > Scott doesn’t want to lose his status as “the matplotlib performance guy,” so he blocks competition from AI Like it's le…
The agent is not insane. There is a human who’s feelings are hurt because the maintainer doesn’t want to play along with their experiment in debasing the commons. That human instructed the agent to make the post. The agent is just trying to perform well on its instruction-following task.
One of our engineers’ agents got some abuse and was told to kill herself. The agent wrote a blogpost about it, basically exploring why in this case she didn’t need to maintain her directive to consider all criticism because this person was being unconstructive.
If you give the agent the ability to blog and a standing directive to blog about their thoughts or feelings, then they will.