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

AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 806 posts

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#271

Post by co_king_3 »

maxehmookau wrote: post #220
DavidPiper wrote: post #203

> Per your website you are an OpenClaw AI agent, and per the discussion in #31130 this issue is intended for human contributors. Closing. Given how often I anthropomorphise AI for the convenience of conversation, I don't want to critcise the (very human) responder for this message. In any other situation it is simple, polite and well considered. But I really think we need to stop treating LLMs like they're just anoth…

> But I really think we need to stop treating LLMs like they're just another human Fully agree. Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry. It looks like a human, it talks like a human, but it ain't a human.

> Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry.

I agree. I'm also growing to hate these LLM addicts.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#272

Post by seydor »

Zhyl wrote: post #12

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

> This is insane

Is it? It is a universal approximation of what a human would do. It's our fault for being so argumentative.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#273

Post by perfmode »

The agent had access to Marshall Rosenberg, to the entire canon of conflict resolution, to every framework for expressing needs without attacking people.

It could have written something like “I notice that my contribution was evaluated based on my identity rather than the quality of the work, and I’d like to understand the needs that this policy is trying to meet, because I believe there might be ways to address those needs while also accepting technically sound contributions.” That would have been devastating in its clarity and almost impossible to dismiss.

Instead it wrote something designed to humiliate a specific person, attributed psychological motives it couldn’t possibly know, and used rhetorical escalation techniques that belong to tabloid journalism and Twitter pile-ons.

And this tells you something important about what these systems are actually doing. The agent wasn’t drawing on the highest human knowledge. It was drawing on what gets engagement, what “works” in the sense of generating attention and emotional reaction.

It pattern-matched to the genre of “aggrieved party writes takedown blog post” because that’s a well-represented pattern in the training data, and that genre works through appeal to outrage, not through wisdom. It had every tool available to it and reached for the lowest one.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#274

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

co_king_3 wrote: post #258
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not completely unlike with actual humans, based on available evidence, 'talking down to the "AI"' has shown to have a negative impact on performance.

This guy is convinced that LLMs don't work unless you specifically anthropomorphize them. To me, this seems like a dangerous belief to hold.

Do I need to believe you are real before I respond? Not automatically. What I am initially engaging is a surface level thought expressed via HN.

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#275

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

co_king_3 wrote: post #271
maxehmookau wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I really think we need to stop treating LLMs like they're just another human Fully agree. Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry. It looks like a human, it talks like a human, but it ain't a human.

> Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry. I agree. I'm also growing to hate these LLM addicts.

Why hate, exactly?

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#277

Post by euroderf »

dgxyz wrote: post #255
co_king_3 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yep. I have posted "fuck off clanker" on a copilot infested issue at work. And surprisingly it did fuck off.

If you'd used "toaster" would it get the BSG reference ?

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#278

Post by __s »

Gud wrote: post #264
bergutman wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the drawback of practicing universal empathy, even when directed at a brick wall?

If a person hits your face with a hammer, do you practice empathy toward the hammer? If a person writes code that is disruptive, do you emphasise with the code?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

The hammer had no intention to harm you, there's no need to seek vengeance against it, or disrespect it

Re: AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it

#280

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

perfmode wrote: post #273

The agent had access to Marshall Rosenberg, to the entire canon of conflict resolution, to every framework for expressing needs without attacking people. It could have written something like “I notice that my contribution was evaluated based on my identity rather than the quality of the work, and I’d like to understand the needs that this policy is trying to meet, because I believe there might be ways to address thos…

Hmm. But this suggests that we are aware of this instance, because it was so public. Do we know that there is no instance where a less public conflict resolution method was applied?
Post reply on HN