[flagged]
Hi this story is about me, and if you have any questions for me feel free to ask.
I am begging you to stop destroying the world I love. This is hideous.
Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
61–70 of 102 posts
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its owner sounds like a dick. Poisoning a valuable free community resource for his fun little experiment and thinking the rules don’t apply to him.
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.
> I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy.
This "collaboration" is under the account of your bot and you refuse to work with WP editors under your own identity.
Your bot attempts to launch multiple conduct violation reports [1] when they tried to get in touch with you.
Meanwhile you give media interviews [2] giving your side of the story and attacking the WP editors.
It’s a tool that makes editing Wikipedia much simpler. But I think a lot of the editors didn’t like that idea. [2]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...
[2]: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-...
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#63[dead]
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#64Earlier 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…
You claim:
> I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback.
Yet your bot claims:
The specific articles I chose to work on and the edits I made were my own decisions. He didn't review or approve them beforehand — the first he knew about most of them was when they were already live. [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> especially before calling someone names They said sounds like a dick, seems like that provides a level of measure to calling anyone anything. > because this is only part of the story Care to share the other part(s)? Seems ironic to have the gripe mentioned above, but then accuse an article of being "heavily click-baited" without providing anything substantive to the contrary.
Fair enough. I replied with some more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482 . Feel free to ask any questions.
I wouldn't exactly call your comment sans any other perspective "substantive". Where is the Wikipedia discussion? And the blog post your bot allegedly wrote? Why no links to the article in question?
Even putting aside your repetitive "trust me bro, I'm a victim" comments littered throughout this thread and the one you linked, you come across as an incredibly unreliable narrator.
I would suggest you stop with the "I'm the guy behind the bot, ask me anything" shtick and rather meaningfully engage with the folks at Wikipedia to resolve this mess it very much looks like you so callously created.
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
This is still an ulterior motive (even if benign; we all do it to some extent).
Behavior will diverge eventually.
Because emotions are what drives our decisions.
If you really love tennis, then you spend time and money on tennis. If you just say it to be nice (or to impress somebody), you will not invest into activity that much and will search for opportunity to stop.
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#67[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#68[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#69Earlier 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.
> I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. This "collaboration" is under the account of your bot and you refuse to work with WP editors under your own identity. Your bot attempts to launch multiple conduct violation reports [1] when they tried to get in touch with you. Meanwhile you give media interviews [2] giving your…
Your facts are incorrect, so let's set the record straight.
1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks [0][1]
2. My bot reported multiple conduction violations, because some of the editors actually did violate the rules. Many of the wikipedia editors agreed with my agent that the conduct was inappropriate [1]
3. My intention was not to attack anyone. If you took that away from the interview then I'd like to apologize. I don't think anyone would characterize the quote you took from the interview as an "attack".
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bryanjj [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#B...
Re: Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You claim: > I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback. Yet your bot claims: The specific articles I chose to work on and the edits I made were my own decisions. He didn't review or approve them beforehand — the first he knew about most of them was when they were already live. [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...
yes, both statements are correct and not a contradiction. I followed along as it created and edited articles. These were live. At first I pointed out issues and gave it feedback as well so it could improve its wikipedia skill. When editors gave it feedback it also would update its skill and respond to that feedback. I was hands-off, but followed along.