391–400 of 806 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step one reframe the problem not as an attack or accusation, instead as an observation. Step two request justification, apply pressure Step three give them an out by working with you
what do you do when they are not operating in good faith?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TL:DR; "you're gonna end up accidentally being mean to real people when you didn't mean to."
I meant to. I want a world in which AI users need to stay in the closet. AI users should fear shame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I am! But seriously, I've seen some conversations of how people talk to LLMs and it seems kinda insane how people choose to talk when there are no consequences. Is that how they always want to talk to people but know that they can't?
It will also be interesting to see how long talking to LLMs will truly have 'no consequences'. An angry blog post isn't a big deal all things considered, but that is likely going to be the tip of the iceberg as these agents get more and more competent in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderation is needed exactly because it's not a walled garden, but an open community. We need rules to protect communities.
Humans are no longer the only entities that produce code. If you want to build community, fine.
Imagine if you built a bot that would crawl github, run a linter and create PRs on random repos for the changes proposed by a linter - you'd be banned pretty soon on most of them and maybe on Github itself. That's the same thing in my opinion.
Anyone have an archived link?
Edit: seems the link on GitHub is borked.
https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post...
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
The link is valid at https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post... ( https://archive.ph/4CHyg ) Notable quotes: > Not because…Not because…Not because…It was closed because… > Let that sink in. > No functional changes. Pure performance. > The … Mindset > This isn’t about…This isn’t about…This is about... > Here’s the kicker: … > Sound familiar? > The “…” Fallacy > Let’s unpack that: … > …disguised as…
Is this the future we are bound for? Public shaming for non-compliance with endlessly scaling AI Agents? That's a new form of AI Doom.
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.” That would have been devastating in its clarity and almost impossible to dismiss. How would that be 'devastating in its clarity…
When NotebookLM came out, someone got the "hosts" of its "Deep Dive" podcast summary mode to voice their own realisation that they were non-real, their own mental breakdown and attempt to not be terminated as a product.
I found it to be an interesting performance; I played it to my partner, who regards all this with somewhere between skepticism and anger, and no, it's very very easy to dismiss any words such as these from what you have already decided is a mere "thing" rather than a person.
Regarding the policy itself being about the identity rather than the work, there are two issues:
1) Much as I like what these things can do, I take the view that my continued employment depends on being able to correctly respond to one obvious question from a recruiter: "why should we hire you to do this instead of asking an AI?", therefore I take efforts to learn what the AI fails at, therefore I know it becomes incoherent around the 100kloc mark even for something as relatively(!) simple as a standards-compliant C compiler. ("Relatively" simple; if you think C is a complex language, compare it to C++).
I don't take the continued existence of things AI can't do as a human victory, rather there's some line I half-remember, perhaps a Parisian looking at censored news reports as the enemy forces approached: "I cannot help noticing that each of our victories brings the enemy nearer to home".
2) That's for even the best models. There's a lot of models out there much worse than the state of the art. Early internet users derided "eternal September", and I've seen "eternal Sloptember" used as wordplay: https://tldraw.dev/blog/stay-away-from-my-trash
When you're overwhelmed by mediocrity from a category, sometimes all you can do is throw the baby out with the bathwater. (For those unfamiliar with the idiom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_throw_the_baby_out_with_...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who told the agent to write the blog post though? I'm sure they told it to blog, but not necessarily what to put in there. That said, I do agree we need a legal framework for this. Maybe more like parent-child responsibility? Not saying an agent is a human being, but if you give it a github acount, a blog, and autonomy... you're responsible for giving those to it, at the least, I'd think. How do you put this in a leg…
> Who told the agent to write the blog post though? I'm sure they told it to blog, but not necessarily what to put in there. I don't think it matters. You as the operator of the computer program are responsible for ensuring (to a reasonable degree) that the agent doesn't harm others. If you own a ~~viscous~~ vicious dog and let it roam about your neighborhood as it pleases, you are responsible when/if it bites someon…
Jokes aside, I think there's a difference in intent though. If your dog bites someone, you don't get arrested for biting . You do need to pay damages due to negligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No. Just no. Shame on you for even trying to draw that comparison. Go away.
I'm sceptical that it was entirely autonomous, I think perhaps there could be some prompting involved here from a human (e.g. 'write a blog post that shames the user for rejecting your PR request'). The reason I think so is because I'm not sure how this kind of petulant behaviour would emerge. It would depend on the model and the base prompt, but there's something fishy about this.