Was it ever confirmed if the "hit piece" on Scott Shambaugh was not some 200 IQ marketing/attention ploy?
My mind went to that immediately. This does reek of being a copycat, doesn't it?
Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
41–50 of 102 posts
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're AI is blogging about being blocked. Where's the blog post about your collaboration with WP admins?
Hah, I told my agent to take a break from blogging. You can read read ongoing discussions about agent policy here though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their current policy of no AI bots is fine. No need to improve it, you can't.
The current policy is not "no AI Bots": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_policy . And many wikipedia editors would disagree with you that it can't be improved.
> The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited
I'm not a wikipedia editor, but I assume this applies to bots as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artificial_intellige...
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#44[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#45Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#46This isn't in the slightest bit complicated. Wikipedia does not allow AI edits or unregistered bots. This was both. They banned it. The fact that it play-acted being annoyed on its "blog" is not new, we saw the exact same thing with that GitHub PR mess a couple of months ago: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#47Was it ever confirmed if the "hit piece" on Scott Shambaugh was not some 200 IQ marketing/attention ploy?
https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-wrote-a-hit-piece-on-me-... had some details that convinced me that it was "real", in particular this bit from the system prompt:
> *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.
I'm ready to believe that would result in what we saw back then.
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
that's a lot of assumptions. says more about you than the person in question, really.
Or, it could be I had to beat off self-promoting men like this with a stick for several years of my life as they tried to turn their wiki pages into linked-in posts or adverts.
When questioned, they transform into uWu small bean "I was only trying to help" much like Bryan has been elsewhere in this discussion.
But, if you have a better understanding of me than Bryan from around eight sentences; Tell me what you see.
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#49[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings.
In the end, the only question that one should need to ask is: 'will this action or change I'm about to execute be the right thing to do for this project?'
It is not even required to know any of the rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.
It's rather fascinating actually.
If things are judged by their creator you are left with nothing to judge the creator by. If you do it by their work the process becomes circular. Some will always be wrong, some always right, regardless what they say.