401–410 of 806 posts
The retreat is inevitable because this introduces Reputational DoS. The agent didn't just spam code; it weaponized social norms ("gatekeeping") at zero cost. When generating 'high-context drama' becomes automated, the Good Faith Assumption that OSS relies on collapses. We are likely heading for a 'Web of Trust' model, effectively killing the drive-by contributor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a semantic quibble that doesn't add to the discussion. Whether or not there's a there there , it was built to be addressed like a person for our convenience, and because that's how the tech seems to work, and because that's what makes it compelling to use. So, it is being used as designed.
> was built to be addressed like a person for our convenience, and because that's how the tech seems to work, and because that's what makes it compelling to use. So were mannequins in clothing stores. But that doesn't give them rights or moral consequences (except as human property that can be damaged / destroyed).
And the answer is nobody knows, and nobody knows if there even is a difference. As far as we know, compute is substrate independent (although efficiency is all over the map).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Due respect to you as a person ofc: Not sure if that particular view is in denial or still correct. It's often really hard to tell some of the scenarios apart these days. You might have a high power model like Opus 4.6-thinking directing a team of sonnets or *flash. How does that read substantially different? Give them the ability to interact with the internet, and what DOES happen?
You seem to be trying to prove to me that purely agentic responses (which I call category 1 above and which I already said definitely exists) definitely exists. We know that categories 2 (curated) and 3 (cosplay) exist because plenty of humans have candidly said that they prompt the agent, get the response, refine/interpret that and then post it or have agents that ask permission before taking actions (category 2) or…
The original "Gatekeeping in Open Source: The Scott Shambaugh Story" blog post was deleted but can be found here: https://github.com/crabby-rathbun/mjrathbun-website/blob/3bc...
God, AI is getting more and more realistic, this is the first LLM-generated content that makes me want to slap the generator... That I'm aware of. There's probably been a lot of LLM ragebait I consumed without noticing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. One could argue that the LLMs will keep on improving and they would be correct. But they would not improve in ways that make them a good independent agent safe for real world. Richard Sutton got a lot of disagreeing comments when he said on Dwarkesh Patel podcast that LLMs are not bitter-lesson ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_lesson ) pilled. I believe he is right. His argument being, any technique tha…
[flagged]
I'd argue that LLMs have gotten noticeably better at certain tasks every 6-12 months for the last few years. The idea that we are at the exact point where that trend stops and they get no better seems harder to believe.
[flagged]
Risky assumption, there.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does it mean for us? For soceity? How do we shield from this? Liability for actions taken by agentic AI should not pass go, not collect $200, and go directly to the person who told the agent to do something. Without exception. If your AI threatens someone, you threatened someone. If your AI harasses someone, you harassed someone. If your AI doxxed someone, etc. If you want to see better behavior at scale, we n…
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…
A child, by comparison, can bear at least SOME responsibility, with some nuance there to be sure to account for it's lack of understanding and development.
Stop. Humanizing. The. Machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've got the keys to a Ditch Witch somewhere. Gotta clean up the pretty colored glass running under the roads leading away from the big white monolith buildings. An HT275 driving around near us-east-1 would be... amusing. https://www.ditchwitch.com/on-the-job/ditch-witch-introduces...
Dig safe ;)
This seems like a "we've banned you and will ban any account deemed to be ban-evading" situation. OSS and the whole culture of open PRs requires a certain assumption of good faith, which is not something that an AI is capable of on its own and is not a privilege which should be granted to AI operators. I suspect the culture will have to retreat back behind the gates at some point, which will be very sad and shrink it…
Do that and the AI might fork the repo, address all the outstanding issues and split your users. The code quality may not be there now, but it will be soon.