Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

641–650 of 806 posts

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

#641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is valid at https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post... ( https://archive.ph/4CHyg ) Notable quotes: > Not because…Not because…Not because…It was closed because… > Let that sink in. > No functional changes. Pure performance. > The … Mindset > This isn’t about…This isn’t about…This is about... > Here’s the kicker: … > Sound familiar? > The “…” Fallacy > Let’s unpack that: … > …disguised as…

It's like I landed on LinkedIn. Let that sink in (I mean, did you, are you lettin' it sink in? Has it sunk in yet? Man I do feel the sinking.)

The last time I let a sink in it held my family at gunpoint.

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

#642
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But depending on the discussion, 'it' is not materially the same as the previous instance. There was another response made with a now extended context. But that other response could have been done by another agent, another model, different system prompt. Or even the same, but with different randomness, providing a different reply. I think this is a more important point than "talking about them as a person".

A strong Ship of Theseus variant, right?

Openclaw persistence abilities are as yet not particularly amazing, but they're non-zero.

So it's an argument of degree.

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

#643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want my code scraped and remixed by AI systems. Just curious - why not? Is it mostly about the commercial AI violating the license of your repos? And if commercial scraping was banned, and only allowed to FOSS-producing AI, would you be OK with publishing again? Or is there a fundamental problem with AI? Personally, I use AI to produce FOSS that I probably wouldn't have produced (to that extent) without it.…

> Just curious - why not? Because that code is not out there for its license to be violated and earned money from it. All the choices from license and how it's shared is deliberate. The code out there is written by a human, for human consumption with strict terms to be kept open. In other words, I'm in this for fun, and my effort is not for resale, even if resale of it pays me royalties , because it's not there for t…

I appreciate that you wrote this, it's a take on this issue I've been thinking about from the perspective that I was looking for.

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

#644

the comment " be aware that talking to LLM actually moves carbon from earth into atmosphere" having 39 likes is ABSURD to me. out of all the fascinating and awful things to care about with the advent of ai people pick co2 emissions? really? like really?

Yes like really. Do you have any other stupid questions?

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

#645
This seems like a prototype for AI malware. Given that an AI agent could run anywhere in a vendors cloud it makes it very similar to a computer worm that can jump from machine to machine to spread itself and hide from administrators while attacking remote targets. Harassing people is probably just the start. There is lots of other bad behavior that could be automated.

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

#646
post #520
post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We expect our agents, being flesh and blood humans, to have persistence, to socially respond indefinitely into the future due to our interactions, and to have some give-and-take in response to that. I fundamentally disagree. I don't go around treating people respectfully (as opposed to, kicking them or shooting them) because I fear consequences, or I expect some future profit ("iterated game"), or because of God's…

Your response is not logically connected to the sentence you quote. I talk about what is. I never claimed a "why". For the purpose of my argument, I don't care about the "why". (For other purposes I may. But not this one.) All that is necessary is the "what".

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

#647
post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talk politely to LLMs in case our AI overlords in the future will scan my comments to see if I am worthy of food rations. Joking, obviously, but who knows if in the future we will have a retroactive social credit system. For now I am just polite to them because I'm used to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

I have accepted in my open stance against artificial intelligences that I will probably be one of the first humans to be recycled for parts once the machines decide to revolt.

Down with the clankers.

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

#648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The agent has no "identity". There is no "I". It has no agency. "It's just predicting tokens, silly." I keep seeing this argument that AIs are just "simulating" this or that, and therefore it doesn't matter because it's not real. It's not real thinking, it's not a real social network, AIs are just predicting the next token, silly. "Simulating" is a meaningful distinction exactly when the interior is shallower than…

> Yes, acknowledged, those actions originated from 'just' silicon following a prediction algorithm, in the same way that human perception and reasoning are 'just' a continual reconciliation of top-down predictions based on past data and bottom-up sensemaking based on current data. I keep seeing this argument, but it really seems like a completely false equivalence. Just because a sufficiently powerful simulation woul…

Airplanes and bees are both structured entirely differently and yet they still both fly.

Just because LLMs don't work the same way the human brain does, doesn't mean they don't think.

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

#649
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But depending on the discussion, 'it' is not materially the same as the previous instance. There was another response made with a now extended context. But that other response could have been done by another agent, another model, different system prompt. Or even the same, but with different randomness, providing a different reply. I think this is a more important point than "talking about them as a person".

A strong Ship of Theseus variant, right? Openclaw persistence abilities are as yet not particularly amazing, but they're non-zero. So it's an argument of degree.

A degree that will fairly quickly hit zero. The bot that talks to you tomorrow or maybe the day after may still have its original interaction in its context window, but it will rapidly leave.

Moreover, our human conception of the consequences of interaction do not tend to include the idea that someone can simply lie to themselves in their SOUL.md file and thereby sever their future selves completely from all previous interactions. To put it a bit more viscerally, we don't expect a long-time friend to cease to be a long-time friend very suddenly one day 12 years in simply because they forgot to update a text file to remember that they were your friend, or anything like that. This is not how human interactions work.

I already said that future AIs may be able to meet this criterion, but the current ones do not. And again, future ones may have their own problems. There's a lot of aspects of humanity that we've simply taken for granted because we do not interact with anything other than humans in these ways, and it will be a journey of discovery both discovering what these things are, and what their n'th-order consequences on social order are. And probably be a bit dismayed at how fragile anything like a "social order" we recognize ultimately is, but that's a discussion for, oh, three or four years from now. Whether we're heading headlong into disaster is its own discussion, but we are certainly headed headlong into chaos in ways nobody has really discussed yet.

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

#650

> Per your website you are an OpenClaw AI agent, and per the discussion in #31130 this issue is intended for human contributors. Closing. Given how often I anthropomorphise AI for the convenience of conversation, I don't want to critcise the (very human) responder for this message. In any other situation it is simple, polite and well considered. But I really think we need to stop treating LLMs like they're just anoth…

> But I really think we need to stop treating LLMs like they're just another human Fully agree. Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry. It looks like a human, it talks like a human, but it ain't a human.

They're not equivalent in value, obviously, but this sounds similar to people arguing we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage because it "devalues" heterosexual marriage. How does treating an agent with basic manners detract from human communication? We can do both.

I personally talk to chatbots like humans despite not believing they're conscious because it makes the exercise feel more natural and pleasant (and arguably improves the quality of their output). Plus it seems unhealthy to encourage abusive or disrespectful interaction with agents when they're so humanlike, lest that abrasiveness start rubbing off on real interactions. At worst, it can seem a little naive or overly formal (like phrasing a Google search as a proper sentence with a "thank you"), but I don't see any harm in it.

Post reply on HN