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

611–620 of 806 posts

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

#611

Post by deeviant »

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…

> It was drawing on what gets engagement

I do not think LLMs optimize for 'engagement', corporations do, but LLMs optimize on statistical convergence, I don't find that that results in engagement focus, your opinion my vary. It seems like LLM 'motivations' are whatever one writer feels they need to be to make a point.

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

#612

Post by co_king_3 »

wiseowise wrote: post #522
co_king_3 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant to. I want a world in which AI users need to stay in the closet. AI users should fear shame.

> I want a world in which AI users need to stay in the closet. > AI users should fear shame. > created: 3 days ago Unsolicited advice: stop trolling and see a therapist.

[flagged]

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

#613

Post by colpabar »

simianwords wrote: post #557
goatlover wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we know about how it works is you can prompt it to address you however you like, which could be any kind of person or a group of people, or as fictional characters. That's not how humans work.

You admitted it yourself that you can prompt it to address you however you like. That’s what the original comment wanted. So why are we quibbling about words?

that's all that happens on this website

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

#615

Post by co_king_3 »

usefulposter wrote: post #582
logicprog wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic for you to say this considering that you're not actually engaging in conversation or internalizing any of the points people are trying to relay to you, but instead just spreading anger and resentment around the comment section at a bot-like rate. In general, I've found that anti-LLM people are far more angry, vitriolic, unwilling to acknowledge or internalize the points of others — including factual ones…

>you're not actually engaging in conversation Users seem to be persistently flagkilling their comments. That doesn't help facilitate effective conversation of LLM critique.

> Users seem to be persistently flagkilling their comments.

If you express an anti-AI opinion (without neutering it by including "but actually it's soooooooo good at writing shitty code though") they will silence you.

The astroturfing is out of control.

AI firms and their delusional supporters are not at all interested in any sort of discussion.

These people and bot accounts will not take no for an answer.

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

#616

Post by deeviant »

Projects that deny AI contribution will simply disappear when an agent can reproduce their entire tech stack in a single prompt within a couple years. (not there yet, but the writing is on the wall at this point).

Whatever the right response to that future is, this feels like the way of the ostrich.

I fully support the right of maintainers to set standards and hold contributors to them, but this whole crusader against AI contribution just feels performative, at this point, almost pathetic. The final stand of yet another class of artisans to watch their craft be taken over by machines, and we won't be the last.

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

#617

Post by zeroonetwothree »

jdironman wrote: post #320
nullify88 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 those needs while also accepting technically sound contributions Wow, where can I learn to write like this? I could use this at work.

Step one reframe the problem not as an attack or accusation, instead as an observation. Step two request justification, apply pressure Step three give them an out by working with you

I hate this sort of communication, it's very manipulative. If I have to justify my decisions to every single person that asks something of me then I couldn't get any work done.

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

#618

Post by Brian_K_White »

holoduke wrote: post #11

For an experiment i created multiple agents that reviewed pull requests from other people in various teams. I never saw so many frustrated reactions and angry people. Some refused to do any further reviews. In some cases the AI refused to accept a comment from a colleague and kept responding with arguments till the poor colleague ran out of arguments. AI even responded with fu tongue smiles. Interesting too see never…

Did you ensure everyone knew they were interacting with an LLM? IE it's name made it clear?

...added...

This text reads sociopathic on it's own regardless.

Even if everything was done above board so no one was abused the way it looks like they were, this is not how I would have written about the same process and results.

Hey more angry people for your fascinating experiment, on this whole unexpected bonus dimension! Humans man, so unfathomable but anyway interesting.

I suppose it's possible maybe you only write sociopathic. You actually do recognize that you did something to other people, or at least that they suffered something through no fault of their own, and it somehow just isn't reflected at all when you write about it.

You might want to clear that up if we're all reading this wrong.

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

#619

Post by pseudalopex »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #398
lunar_mycroft wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I don't think it matters. You as the operator of the computer program are responsible for ensuring (to a reasonable degree) that the agent doesn't harm others. If you own a ~~viscous~~ vicious dog and let it roam about your neighborhood as it pleases, you are responsible when/if it bites someon…

I too, would be terrified if a thick, slow moving creature oozed its way through the streets viscously. Jokes aside, I think there's a difference in intent though. If your dog bites someone, you don't get arrested for biting . You do need to pay damages due to negligence.

People who failed to control their dogs were convicted for manslaughter. 1 person at least was convicted for murder even.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple

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

#620

Post by Kim_Bruning »

pseudalopex wrote: post #594
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> How do you put this in a legal framework that actually works? They told you before you asked.

They had a proposal, it's a good one: let's have a legal framework!

But their example is still pretty simple.

How would you put it together so it actually works? We're going to need one pretty soon, by the looks of it.

Post reply on HN