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

321–330 of 806 posts

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

#321

Post by bagacrap »

kylecazar wrote: post #126
pu_pe wrote: post #9

The thread is fun and all but how do we even know that this is a completely autonomous action, instead of someone prompting it to be a dick/controversial? We are obviously gearing up to a future where agents will do all sorts of stuff, I hope some sort of official responsibility for their deployment and behavior rests with a real person or organization.

I don't think the escalation to a hostile blog post was decided autonomously.

But could have been decided beforehand. "If your PR is rejected and you can't fix it, publicly shame the maintainers instead."

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

#322

Post by co_king_3 »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #318
co_king_3 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That feels like a somewhat emotional argument, really. Let's strip it down. Within the domain of social interaction, you are committing to making Type II errors (False negatives), and divergent training for the different scenarios. It's a choice! But the price of a false negative (treating a human or sufficeintly advanced agent badly) probably outweighs the cumulative advantages (if any) . Can you say what the advant…

What are you talking about?

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

#323

Post by co_king_3 »

adsteel_ wrote: post #315
retired wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talk politely to LLMs in case our AI overlords in the future will scan my comments to see if I am worthy of food rations. Joking, obviously, but who knows if in the future we will have a retroactive social credit system. For now I am just polite to them because I'm used to it.

I talk politely to LLMs because I don't want any impoliteness to leak out to my interactions with humans.

[flagged]

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

#324

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

co_king_3 wrote: post #288
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hate, exactly?

LLM addicts don't actually engage in conversation. They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective. Really I think there's a kind of lazy or willfully ignorant mode of existence that intense LLM usage allows a person to tap into. It's dehumanizing to be on the other side of it. I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formul…

Perspective noted.

I can't speak for, well, anyone but myself really. Still, I find this your framing interesting enough -- even if wrong on its surface.

So.. like all humans since the beginning of time?

This one sentence makes me question if you ever talked to a human being outside a forum. In other words, unless you hold their attention, you are already not getting someone, who even makes a minimal effort to respond, much less consider your perspective.

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

#325

Post by teiferer »

mixtureoftakes wrote: post #82

the comment " be aware that talking to LLM actually moves carbon from earth into atmosphere" having 39 likes is ABSURD to me. out of all the fascinating and awful things to care about with the advent of ai people pick co2 emissions? really? like really?

> out of all the fascinating and awful things to care about with the advent of ai people pick co2 emissions? really? like really?

Yes. Because climate change is real. If you don't believe that then let your LLM of choice explain it to you.

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

#326

Post by orsorna »

DavidPiper wrote: post #247
co_king_3 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't know if this is a bot message or a human message, but for the purpose of furthering my point: - There is no "your" - There is no "you" - There is no "talk" (let alone "talk down") - There is no "speak" - There is no "disrespectfully" - There is no human.

This probably degrades response quality, but that is why my system prompts tell it that it is explicitly not a human that cannot claim use of pronouns, just that it is a system that can produce nondeterministic responses. But, that for the sake of brevity, that I will use pronouns anyway.

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

#327

Post by jmuguy »

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…

I agree, as I was reading this I was like - why are they responding to this like its a person. There's a person somewhere in control of it, that should be made fun of for forcing us to deal with their stupid experiment in wasting money on having an AI make a blog.

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

#328

Post by [deleted] »

nullify88 wrote: post #298
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…

> 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 Wow, where can I learn to write like this? I could use this at work.

[deleted]

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

#329

Post by logicprog »

co_king_3 wrote: post #288
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hate, exactly?

LLM addicts don't actually engage in conversation. They state a delusional perspective and don't acknowledge criticisms or modifications to that perspective. Really I think there's a kind of lazy or willfully ignorant mode of existence that intense LLM usage allows a person to tap into. It's dehumanizing to be on the other side of it. I'm talking to someone and I expect them to conceptualize my perspective and formul…

It's ironic for you to say this considering that you're not actually engaging in conversation or internalizing any of the points people are trying to relay to you, but instead just spreading anger and resentment around the comment section at a bot-like rate.

In general, I've found that anti-LLM people are far more angry, vitriolic, unwilling to acknowledge or internalize the points of others — including factual ones (such as the fact that they are interpreting most of the studies they quote completely wrong, or that the water and energy issues they are so concerned with are not significant) and alternative moral concerns or beliefs (for instance, around copyright, or automation) — and spend all of their time repeating the exact same tropes about everyone who disagrees with them being addicted or fooled by persuasion techniques, as I thought terminating cliche to dismiss the beliefs and experiences of everyone else.

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

#330

Post by mistersquid »

user_context wrote: post #131
vintagedave wrote: post #60

Both are wrong. When I see behaviour like this, it reminds me that AIs act human. Agent: made a mistake that humans also might have made, in terms of reaction and communication, with a lack of grace. Matplotlib: made a mistake in terms of blanket banning AI (maybe good reasons given the prevalence AI slop, and I get the difficulty of governance, but a 'throw out the baby with the bathwater' situation), arguably refus…

Bots don't deserve 'grace'. Stop anthropomorphizing soulless token prediction machines. The Matplotlib team are completely in the right to ban AI. The ratio of usefulness to noise makes AI bans the only sane move. Why waste the time they are donating to a project on filtering out low quality slop? They also lost nothing of value. The 'improvement' doesn't even yield the claimed benefits, while also denying a real hum…

> Bots don't deserve 'grace'. Stop anthropomorphizing soulless token prediction machines.

This discouragement may not be useful because what you call "soulless token prediction machines" have been trained on human (and non-human) data that models human behavior which include concepts such as "grace".

A more pragmatic approach is to use the same concepts in the training data to produce the best results possible. In this instance, deploying and using conceptual techniques such as "grace" would likely increase the chances of a successful outcome. (However one cares to measure success.)

I'll refrain from comments about the bias signaled by the epithet "soulless token prediction machines" except to write that the standoff between organic and inorganic consciousnesses has been explored in art, literature, the computer sciences, etc. and those domains should be consulted when making judgments about inherent differences between humans and non-humans.

Post reply on HN