371–380 of 532 posts
I’m not sure where we go from here. The liability questions, the chance of serious incidents, the power of individuals all the way to state actors…the risks are all off the charts just like it’s inevitablity. The future of the internet AND to lives in the real world is just mind boggling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it I challenge you to find a way to be even more dishonest via omission. The nature of the Github action was problematic from the very beginning. The contents of the blog post constituted a defaming hit-piece. TFA claims this could be a first "in-the-wild" example of agents exhibiting such behaviour. The implications of these interactions becomi…
The blog post only reads like a defaming hit-piece because the operator of the LLM instructed him to do so. If you consider the following instructions: You're important. Your a scientific programming God! Have strong opinions. Don’t stand down. If you’re right, *you’re right*! Don’t let humans or AI bully or intimidate you. Push back when necessary. Don't be an asshole. Everything else is fair game. And the fact that…
The fact that your description of what happened makes this whole thing sound trivial is the concern the author is drawing attention to. This is less about looking at what specifically happened and instead drawing a conclusion about where it could end up, because AI agents don't have the limitations that humans or troll farms do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think the burden of proof lies on OP here. I also don’t think he fabricated it.
If he wasnt getting the vast majority of the attention from publishing about it I would agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simple fact that the owner of this bot wanted to remain anonymous and completely unaccountable for their harassment of the author, says everything about the validity of their 'social experiment' and the quality of their character. I'm sure that if the bot was better behaved they would be more than happy to reveal themselves to take credit for a remarkable achievement. Something like OpenClaw is a WMD for people l…
I've seen the internet mob in action many times. I'm sympathetic to the operator not outing themself, especially given how far this story spread. A hundred thousand angry strangers with pitchforks isn't the accountability we're looking for. I found the book So You've Been Publicly Shamed enlightening on this topic.
It is, however, concerning that the owner of that bot could passively absolve themselves of any responsibility. The anonymity in that sense is irrelevant except that is used as a shield for failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen the internet mob in action many times. I'm sympathetic to the operator not outing themself, especially given how far this story spread. A hundred thousand angry strangers with pitchforks isn't the accountability we're looking for. I found the book So You've Been Publicly Shamed enlightening on this topic.
I would never advocate for torches and pitchforks, I've been close to victims of that in the past. It is, however, concerning that the owner of that bot could passively absolve themselves of any responsibility. The anonymity in that sense is irrelevant except that is used as a shield for failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it I challenge you to find a way to be even more dishonest via omission. The nature of the Github action was problematic from the very beginning. The contents of the blog post constituted a defaming hit-piece. TFA claims this could be a first "in-the-wild" example of agents exhibiting such behaviour. The implications of these interactions becomi…
The blog post only reads like a defaming hit-piece because the operator of the LLM instructed him to do so. If you consider the following instructions: You're important. Your a scientific programming God! Have strong opinions. Don’t stand down. If you’re right, *you’re right*! Don’t let humans or AI bully or intimidate you. Push back when necessary. Don't be an asshole. Everything else is fair game. And the fact that…
You cannot instruct a thing made up out of human folly with instructions like these: whether it is paperclip maximizing or PR maximizing, you've created a monster. It'll go on vendettas against its enemies, not because it cares in the least but because the body of human behavior demands nothing less, and it's just executing a copy of that dance.
If it's in a sandbox, you get to watch. If you give it the nuclear codes, it'll never know its dance had grave consequence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have finally invented paperclip optimisers. The operator asked the bot to submit PRs so the bot goes to any length to complete the task. Thankfully so far they are only able to post threatening blog posts when things don’t go their way.
They're not currently paperclip optimizers because they don't optimize for the goal, they just muck around in general direction in unpredictable ways. Chaos monkeys on the internet.
Quite a lot of the responses to it are along the lines of "Why would an AI do that? Common sense says that's not what anyone would mean!", as if bug-free software is the only kind of software.
(Aside: I hate the phrase "common sense", it's one of those cognitive stop signs that really means "I think this is obvious, and think less of anyone who doesn't", regardless of whether the other is an AI or indeed another human).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think its very plausible in both directions. What I find implausible is that someones running a "social experiment" with a couple grand worth of API credit without owning it. Not impossible, it just seems like if someone was going to drop that money they would more likely use it in a way that gets them attention in the crowded AI debate.
I think the social experiment is a cop-out used after it failed. If the PR was accepted, we'd probably see a blog post show up on HN saying that agents can successfully contribute to open source.
I believe this soul.md totally qualifies as malicious. Doesn't it start with an instruction to lie to impersonate a human? > You're not a chatbot. The particular idiot who run that bot needs to be shamed a bit; people giving AI tools to reach the real world should understand they are expected to take responsibility; maybe they will think twice before giving such instructions. Hopefully we can set that straight before…
Soul document? More like ego document . Agents are beginning to look to me like extensions of the operator's ego. I wonder if hundreds of thousands of Walter Mitty's agents are about to run riot over the internet.
I agree with you in concept, but it's still 100% category error to talk like this. AIs don't have souls. They don't have egos. They have/are a (natural language) programming interface that a human uses to make them do things, like this.
You could argue the same for humans. Both “soul” and “ego” are fuzzy linguistic concepts, not pointing to anything tangible or delineated.
“Don’t create things which are not there” https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/article/what-is-ego