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

An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward

theshamblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 532 posts

Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward

#241

Post by tornadofart »

Anon4Now wrote: post #224
Arainach wrote: post #118

The full operator post is itself a wild ride: https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post... >First, let me apologize to Scott Shambaugh. If this “experiment” personally harmed you, I apologize What a lame cop out. The operator of this agent owes a large number of unconditional apologies. The whole thing reads as egotistical, self-absorbed, and an absolute refusal to accept any blame or perform any s…

From the operator post: > Your a scientific programming God! Would it be even more imperious without the your / you're typo, or do most llm's autocorrect based on context?

Probably led the LLM to dial up the "hubris" setting to 11

Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward

#242

Post by jacquesm »

elashri wrote: post #84
jacquesm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how it will go: AI prompted by human creates something useful? Human will try to take credit. AI wrecks something: human will blame AI. It's externalization on the personal level, the money and the glory is for you, the misery for the rest of the world.

When a corporate does something good, a lot of executives and people inside will go and claim credit and will demand/take bounces. If something bad happened against any laws, even if someone got killed, we don't see them in jail. I don't defend both positions, I am just saying that is not far from how the current legal framework works.

Hence:

> It's externalization on the personal level

Instead of the corporate level.

Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward

#243

Post by rrr_oh_man »

DavidPiper wrote: post #205
Terr_ wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within the framing that it's all fundamentally a make-document-longer algorithm, I propose "seed document." While there's some metaphor to it, it's the kind behind "seed crystals" for ice and minerals, referring to non-living and mostly-mathematical process. If someone went around talking about how the importance of "Soul Crystals" or "Ego Crystals", they would quite rightly attract a lot of very odd looks, at least…

I quite like seed but for a different reason - if you squint a bit, it looks like a natural evolution of a random number seed. My complaint against seed would be that it still harkens back to a biological process that could be easily and creatively conflated when it's convenient.

> I quite like seed but for a different reason - if you squint a bit, it looks like a natural evolution of a random number seed.

Nice!

Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward

#245

Post by chillfox »

wildzzz wrote: post #57
LiamPowell wrote: post #8

> saying they set up the agent as social experiment to see if it could contribute to open source scientific software. This doesn't pass the sniff test. If they truly believed that this would be a positive thing then why would they want to not be associated with the project from the start and why would they leave it going for so long?

I can certainly understand the statement. I'm no AI expert, I use the web UI for ChatGPT to have it write little python scripts for me and I couldn't figure out how to use codeium with vs code. I barely know how to use vs code. I'm not old but I work in a pretty traditional industry where we are just beginning to dip our toes into AI but there are still a large amount of reservations into its ability. But I do try to…

If maintainers of open source want's AI code then they are fully capable of running an agent themselves. If they want to experiment, then again, they are capable of doing that themselves.

What value could a random stranger running an AI agent against some open source code possible provide that the maintainers couldn't do themselves better if they were interested.

Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward

#247

Post by tasuki »

seattle_spring wrote: post #237
tasuki wrote: post #219

Right, the agent published a hit piece on Scott. But I think Scott is getting overly dramatic. First, he published at least three hit pieces on the agent. Second, he actually managed to get the agent shut down. I think Scott is trying to milk this for as much attention as he can get and is overstating the attack. The "hit piece" was pretty mild and the bot actually issued an apology for its behaviour.

> First, he published at least three hit pieces on the agent Hit piece... On an agent? Would it be a "hit piece" if I wrote a blog post about the accuracy of my bathroom scale?

Do you argue with your bathroom scale?

Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward

#250

Post by delaminator »

mrsmrtss wrote: post #233
jcgrillo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Safety" in AI is pure marketing bullshit. It's about making the technology seem "dangerous" and "powerful" (and therefore you're supposed to think "useful"). It's a scam. A financial fraud. That's all there is to it.

So giving a gun to someone mentally challanged is not dangerous for you too?

were those goalposts heavy or did you use a machine to move them ?
Post reply on HN