31–40 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 cont…
(nice to know it's not notable enough for you to remember how to spell that man's name)
I'm sure the people you bothered with your bot said as much.
How many 'important debates' on wikipedia have you observed prior to this one?
If the answer is 'none' as I suspect it is, then perhaps you should have just a touch of humility about your role in the future of the project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 inte…
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.
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/wik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 inte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 cont…
You don't think it's unethical to have bots callout humans?
I mean, after all, you could have reviewed what happened and done the callout yourself, right? Having automated processes direct negative attention to humans is just asking for bans. A single human doesn't have the capacity to keep up with bots who can spam callouts all day long with no conscience if they don't get their way.
In your view, you see nothing wrong in having your bot attack[1] humans?
--------
[1] I'm using this word correctly - calling out is an attack.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 cont…
I know a guy who has an AI that writes articles. I can put you two in touch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cont…
This, at best, deserves a footnote in the Ray Kurweil[sic] main article. (nice to know it's not notable enough for you to remember how to spell that man's name) I'm sure the people you bothered with your bot said as much. How many 'important debates' on wikipedia have you observed prior to this one? If the answer is 'none' as I suspect it is, then perhaps you should have just a touch of humility about your role in th…
As for my future role in the project, I'm just trying to help. If editors continue to ask for my assistance I'm glad to give it.