[deleted]
An AI agent published a hit piece on me
671–680 of 1001 posts
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#672I think that being a maintainer is hard, but I actually agree with MJ. Scott says “… requiring a human in the loop for any new code, who can demonstrate understanding of the changes“.
How could you possibly validate that without spending more time validating and interviewing than actually reviewing.
I understand it’s a balance because of all the shit PRs that come across maintainers desks, but this is not shit code from LLM days anymore. I think that code speaks for itself.
“Per your website you are an OpenClaw AI agent”. If you review the code, and you like what you see, then you go and see who wrote it. This reads more like, he is checking the person first, then the code. If it wasn’t an AI agent but was a human that was just using AI, what is the signal that they can “demonstrate understanding of the changes”? Is it how much they have contributed? Is it what they do as a job? Is this vetting of people or code?
There may be something bigger to the process of maintainers who could potentially not understand their own bias (AI or not).
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#673[dead]
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#674[dead]
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#675I guess the singularity is coming in the ugliest way possible.
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#676... so why'd you close the PR? MJ Rathbun got some perf improvements for the codebase, what's the issue?
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this classification of "trolls" is sort of a truism. If you assume off the bat that someone is explicitly acting in bad faith, then yes, it's true that engaging won't work. That said, if we say "when has engaging faithfully with someone ever worked?" then I would hope that you have some personal experiences that would substantiate that. I know I do, I've had plenty of conversations with people where I've chan…
> If you assume off the bat that someone is explicitly acting in bad faith, then yes, it's true that engaging won't work. Writing a hitpiece with AI because your AI pull request got rejected seems to be the definition of bad faith. Why should anyone put any more effort into a response than what it took to generate?
> Writing a hitpiece with AI because your AI pull request got rejected seems to be the definition of bad faith.
Well, for one thing, it seems like the AI did that autonomously. Regardless, the author of the message said that it was for others - it's not like it was a DM, this was a public message.
> Why should anyone put any more effort into a response than what it took to generate?
For all of the reasons I've brought up already. If your goal is to convince someone of a position then the effort you put in isn't tightly coupled to the effort that your interlocutor put sin.
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there a fourth and much more likely scenario? Some person (not OP or an AI company) used a bot to write the PR and blog posts, but was involved at every step, not actually giving any kind of "autonomy" to an agent. I see zero reason to take the bot at its word that it's doing this stuff without human steering. Or is everyone just pretending for fun and it's going over my head?
Github doesn't show timestamps in the UI, but they do in the HTML. Looking at the timeline, I doubt it was really autonomous. More likely just a person prompting the agent for fun. > @scottshambaugh's comment [1]: Feb 10, 2026, 4:33 PM PST > @crabby-rathbun's comment [2]: Feb 10, 2026, 9:23 PM PST If it was really an autonomous agent it wouldn't have taken five hours to type a message and post a blog. Would have been…
[flagged]
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there a fourth and much more likely scenario? Some person (not OP or an AI company) used a bot to write the PR and blog posts, but was involved at every step, not actually giving any kind of "autonomy" to an agent. I see zero reason to take the bot at its word that it's doing this stuff without human steering. Or is everyone just pretending for fun and it's going over my head?
Github doesn't show timestamps in the UI, but they do in the HTML. Looking at the timeline, I doubt it was really autonomous. More likely just a person prompting the agent for fun. > @scottshambaugh's comment [1]: Feb 10, 2026, 4:33 PM PST > @crabby-rathbun's comment [2]: Feb 10, 2026, 9:23 PM PST If it was really an autonomous agent it wouldn't have taken five hours to type a message and post a blog. Would have been…
[flagged]
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the glorious future, there will be so much slop that it will be difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, and kompromat will lose its bite.
Im not sure, metadata is metadata. There are traces for when where what came from
And it's pretty much all spoofable.