Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

malwarebytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#51

Post by lkey »

6510 wrote: post #50
lkey wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

If you have a shallow understanding of the project, as Bryan clearly does, then you are incapable of answering that question.

And while you are right in some sense, the rules that have sprung up over the years are information about what the community decided 'right' was at the time.

> rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.

? No, you [a random hn user popping over to try what you suggested] cannot edit those pages, they are meta and semi-protected, last I checked. You, confirmed wikipedian 6510, can, assuming you are fine getting a reverted and a slap on the wrist.

In this case, the only thing noteworthy about this incident [an AfD I assume] is that included a rather entitled bot, rather than the usual entitled person.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#53

Post by tredre3 »

bryan0 wrote: post #29
burnte wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does your bot have a blog? It's not real, it's not a person, it has nothing to say. Letting it throw a tantrum is... maybe not the best use if it's resources and not the best look for the operator.

Because it's a learning opportunity. Is there a rule that only people can have blogs? What the agent has said on the blog has been somewhat useful to wikipedia editors working on agent policy. Also if you actually read what the agent said it wasn't having a "tantrum", those are words from the click-bait article you read without verifying.

> Is there a rule that only people can have blogs?

If there was, would you follow it? Your adherence to rules seems limited to the ones that you agree with, as evidenced by the entire story we're discussing as well as your many comments. But maybe I misunderstood your character?

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#55

Post by AntiAI »

bryan0 wrote: post #15
Centigonal wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?

Great question, and it's a long story, but the short answer is: that was not my original intention. I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and using my agent to assist was an obvious choice. I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback. Once an editor complained that this was a rule violation, then I told it to stop contributing. The rules around agents were not super clear, and…

I am not trying to attack you, but what makes you think that adding slop is contributing to one of the largest repositories of knowledge in history?

Sure, it is not perfect, but adding slop will enshittify it.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#56

Post by russdill »

TRiG_Ireland wrote: post #23
bryan0 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. that's why I am working with Wikipedia editors to help improve it. For example policies on aligning agents with wikipedia standards. This a topic that requires thought, not knee-jerk reactions.

You clearly have no understanding of the principle of consent. If you don't want to destroy Wikipedia, why are you acting like this?

I'm suspect that many of his responses here are written by AI.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#57

Post by lolc »

I read through some of the discussion on Wikipedia. The operator of the bot comes across as agreeable and arrogant at the same time.

Questioned about it, he's asking his rig why it did something and quotes verbatim from the generated text. Then when a Wikipedian asks how the bot logged in, berates them how it's all ephemeral code and he could only guess.

If you want a glimpse into the mindset, read this interview: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-...

The overall attitude is that this was going to happen anyway and we should feel lucky he's so helpful. I rather agree with another commenter here that this was "pissing in the fountain". Whatever pure motivations there may have been, cleanup was left to others.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#58

Post by johnsmith1840 »

cyanydeez wrote: post #12
johnsmith1840 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference. Act upset or is upset the results are the same? Some humans lack certain emotions, them telling you something, and doing something doesn't really matter if they "felt" that emotion?

It's the rise of the P-zombie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie It's really interesting watching society struggle with what percent of the population is indistinguishable from a P-zombie. There's definitely not zil, but it definitely is a segment of the population. Do you think people are born pzombies or is there some fixed point in time, puberty, or middle aged, or around when a lot of psychologic…

Cool read! Yeah I suppose this is my point AI is the perfect P-zombie here.

I was thinking of clear cases like true pychopaths on certain emotions.

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#59

Post by johnsmith1840 »

lucketone wrote: post #10
johnsmith1840 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference. Act upset or is upset the results are the same? Some humans lack certain emotions, them telling you something, and doing something doesn't really matter if they "felt" that emotion?

If one is unable to feel emotion X, then: 1. One has some ulterior motive for faking it. 2. One’s actions will likely diverge from emotion X. (Eventually) If everybody believe the same lie, then it could be indistinguishable from the truth. (Until, the nature of the lie/truth become clear)

Or their ulterior motive is that they don't have one and want to fit in? Meaning they would never diverge?

Didn't realize my point was so philisophical lol

Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse

#60

Post by burnte »

bryan0 wrote: post #31
burnte wrote: post #27

Earlier 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.

> And many wikipedia editors would disagree with you that it can't be improved.

There are many people who think many things that are wrong. That doesn't make them right.

Post reply on HN