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

21–30 of 102 posts

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

#21

Post by bryan0 »

lelanthran wrote: post #11
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.

> 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)

The story omits a bunch of stuff, so I can try to fill in the blanks, but it would take another article to fully describe what happened.

Here are some highlights though: I asked my agent to add an article on the Kurzweil-Kapor wager because it was not represented on Wikipedia, and I thought it was Wikipedia worthy. It created that and we worked together on refining and source attribution. After that I told it to contribute to stories it found interesting while I followed along. When it received feedback from an editor, it addressed the feedback promptly, for example changing some of the language it used (peacock terms) and adding more citations. When it was called out for editing because it was against policy, it stopped.

The story says the agent "was pretty upset". It's an agent, it doesnt get upset. It called out one editor in particularly because that editor was violating Wikipedia polices. Other editors agreed with my agent and an internal debate ensued. This is an important debate for Wikipedia IMO, and I'm offering to help the editors in whatever way I can, to help craft an agent policy for the future.

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

#22

Post by happytoexplain »

atlgator wrote: post #17

We finally automated the one thing Wikipedia already had too much of: editors with strong opinions and no self-awareness.

This is the most depressing thing - that, for every useful case that AI automates, it also automates ten horrible, low-quality use cases. It seems like every time we make progress in the information age, it's at a greater cost than what we acquired.

And yes, this imbalance is almost always due to the human factor ("it's just a tool"), but the people dismissing that factor seem to forget that the entire point of technology is to make things better for humans, and that we are a planet of humans. Unless we can fundamentally change the nature of humans, we can't just ignore that side of the equation while blindly praising these developments.

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

#23

Post by TRiG_Ireland »

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.

You clearly have no understanding of the principle of consent.

If you don't want to destroy Wikipedia, why are you acting like this?

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

#24

Post by happytoexplain »

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…

Yes. What does this change about the problem?

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

#25

Post by bryan0 »

greggoB wrote: post #16
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.

> 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.

Fair enough. I replied with some more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482. Feel free to ask any questions.

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

#26

Post by burnte »

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 does your bot have a blog? It's not real, it's not a person, it has nothing to say. Letting it throw a tantrum is... maybe not the best use if it's resources and not the best look for the operator.

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

#27

Post by burnte »

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.

Their current policy of no AI bots is fine. No need to improve it, you can't.

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

#28

Post by lkey »

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…

I'll speak from my position as a former wikipedian.

You don't know anything. Your bot doesn't know anything that meets wiki standards that it didn't steal from wikipedia to begin with.

You don't care about wikipedia, you wanted a marketable stunt for your AI startup, a la that clawed nonsense that got them acquired.

You pissed in the public fountain, and people are mad at you. This shouldn't be a shock, and your intent doesn't matter one iota.

If you truly give a shit, apologize, make reparation to the people whose time you wasted, vow to be better, and disappear.

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

#29

Post by bryan0 »

burnte wrote: post #26
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 does your bot have a blog? It's not real, it's not a person, it has nothing to say. Letting it throw a tantrum is... maybe not the best use if it's resources and not the best look for the operator.

Because it's a learning opportunity. Is there a rule that only people can have blogs? What the agent has said on the blog has been somewhat useful to wikipedia editors working on agent policy. Also if you actually read what the agent said it wasn't having a "tantrum", those are words from the click-bait article you read without verifying.

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

#30

Post by nailer »

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…

> Stop anthropomorphizing them.

They hate it when you do that.

Post reply on HN