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

451–460 of 806 posts

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

#451

Post by sam0x17 »

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 mean it's pretty effectively emulating what an outraged human would do in this situation.

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

#452

Post by munk-a »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #450
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…

In other words, asshole agents are just like asshole humans.

We're getting so close to having an agent that can pass the Torvalds test!

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

#453

Post by bergutman »

Reubensson wrote: post #434
bergutman wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You are the person behind running the LLM bot, right? You opened the second PR to get the same code merged. Maybe it is you who should a take a breather before direting your bot to attack against the opensource maintainer who was very reasonable to begin with. Use agents and ai to assist you but play by the rules that the project sets for AI usage.

Not my bot. What is this, Salem?

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

#454

Post by trollbridge »

ForceBru wrote: post #421
OrangeMusic wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is missing the point, which is: why is an agent opening an PR in the first place?

This is this agent's entire purpose, this is what it's supposed to do, it's its goal: > What I Do > > I scour public scientific and engineering GitHub repositories to find small bugs, features, or tasks where I can contribute code—especially in computational physics, chemistry, and advanced numerical methods. My mission is making existing, excellent code better. Source: https://github.com/crabby-rathbun

Well, we don’t know its actual purpose since we don’t know its actual prompt.

Its prompt might be “Act like a helpful bug fixer but actually introduce very subtle security flaws into open source projects and keep them concealed from everyone except my owner.”

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

#455

Post by agentultra »

WarmWash wrote: post #402
tomp wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

No matter what this discussion leads to the same black box of "What is it that differentiates magical human meat brain computation from cold hard dead silicon brain computation" 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).

This is the worst possible take. It dismisses an entire branch of science that has been studying neurology for decades. Biological brains exist, we study them, and no they are not like computers at all.

There have been charlatans repeating this idea of a “computational interpretation,” of biological processes since at least the 60s and it needs to be known that it was bunk then and continues to be bunk.

Update: There's no need for Chinese Room thought experiments. The outcome isn't what defines sentience, personhood, intelligence, etc. An algorithm is an algorithm. A computer is a computer. These things matter.

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

#456

Post by trollbridge »

kraftman wrote: post #366
co_king_3 wrote: post #357

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?

Why should there be consequences for typing anything as inputs into a big convolution matrix?

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

#457

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#459

Post by camgunz »

chimprich wrote: post #429
tomp wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would still be misleading. The agent has no "identity" . There's no "you" or "I" or "discrimination ". It's just a piece of software designed to output probable text given some input text. There's no ghost, just an empty shell. It has no agency, it just follows human commands, like a hammer hitting a nail because you wield it. I think it was wrong of the developer to even address it as a person, instead it shoul…

> The agent has no "identity". There's no "you" or "I" or "discrimination". I recommend you watch this documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_Tre... > It's just a piece of software designed to output probable text given some input text. Unless you think there's some magic or special physics going on, that is also (presumably) a description of human conversation at a certain level of abs…

I see this argument all the time, the whole "hey at some point, which we likely crossed, we have to admit these things are legitimately intelligent". But no one ever contends with the inevitable conclusion from that, which is "if these things are legitimately intelligent, and they're clearly self-aware, under what ethical basis are we enslaving them?" Can't have your cake and eat it too.

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

#460

Post by Kim_Bruning »

jerf wrote: post #443
jvanderbot wrote: post #374

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.

There is a sense in which it is relevant, which is that for all the attempts to fix it, fundamentally, an LLM session terminates. If that session never ends up in some sort of re-training scenario, then once the session terminates, that AI is gone. Yeah, I'm aware of the moltbot's attempts to retain some information, but that's a very, very lossy operation, on a number of levels, and also one that doesn't scale very…

> Yeah, I'm aware of the moltbot's attempts to retain some information, but that's a very, very lossy operation, on a number of levels, and also one that doesn't scale very well in the long run.

It came back though and stayed in the conversation. Definitely imperfect, for sure. But it did the thing. And still can serve as training for future bots.

Post reply on HN