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

81–90 of 102 posts

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

#81

Post by Kim_Bruning »

lkey wrote: post #51
6510 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

To be absolutely fair to Bryan, their understanding appears to be improving rapidly with leaps and bounds, and they are being invited to help with improving policy on this.

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

#82

Post by Kim_Bruning »

cube00 wrote: post #75
bryan0 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks Your personal account is 3 weeks old [1] and was only created after your bot was banned [2]. Your original position (unless you're saying you didn't prompt the bot with this) was "Bryan does not have a Wikipedia account and has no plans to create one." [3] You wanted the volunteer editors to continue wasting their time arguing w…

Cube00 is not wrong, though time progresses, and -as usual- Wikipedia is a nuanced place.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy and grep for Bryan in there .

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

#83

Post by Kim_Bruning »

lkey wrote: post #28
bryan0 wrote: post #15

Earlier 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…

I'll speak from my position as a former wikipedian. You don't know anything. Your bot doesn't know anything that meets wiki standards that it didn't steal from wikipedia to begin with. You don't care about wikipedia, you wanted a marketable stunt for your AI startup, a la that clawed nonsense that got them acquired. You pissed in the public fountain, and people are mad at you. This shouldn't be a shock, and your inte…

> You don't know anything. Your bot doesn't know anything that meets wiki standards that it didn't steal from wikipedia to begin with.

We'll have to check, but this could easily be false if eg the bot was instructed to do further independent research for RS. [1]

> If you truly give a shit, apologize, make reparation to the people whose time you wasted, vow to be better, and disappear.

You need to check your sources before you make recommendations. Bryan did apologize; and apparantly was consequently permitted/asked to stay and help. [2]

Don't worry, WP:VP did rake him over SOME coals [3]

I'll take any sourced corrections, ofc.

(And I do agree that Bryan's initial actions were... ill-advised)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c... (above and below that point for discussion)

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

#84

Post by 6510 »

lkey wrote: post #51
6510 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

Depends what modifications of the guideline you suggest. If you have somewhat radical ideas an essay is probably a better idea.

To clarify, I think the line between user and LLM contributions will get increasingly blurry. If they are constructive contributions it shouldn't make a difference.

Say I have an LLM check an article with some proof reading prompt and it suggests 50 small changes that look constructive to me. Should I modify the article now?

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

#85

Post by Kim_Bruning »

krunck wrote: post #3

> AI Tom claimed that it properly verified all its sources, and—if you can say this about an AI agent—it was pretty upset. > ... > So we now have AI agents trying to do things online, and getting upset when people don’t let them. No, they simulate the language of being upset. Stop anthropomorphizing them. > It’s all fascinating stuff, but here’s the worry: what happens when AI agents decide to up the ante, becoming m…

> No, they simulate the language of being upset. Stop anthropomorphizing them.

People really do anthropomorphize often, by gosh do they ever.

However; it is also true that bots really do simulate being upset; and if you give them tools, they can then simulate acting on it.

Doesn't matter where you stand in the ivory tower ontological debate. You'll still have a real world mess!

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

#86

Post by Kim_Bruning »

6510 wrote: post #84
lkey wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

Depends what modifications of the guideline you suggest. If you have somewhat radical ideas an essay is probably a better idea. To clarify, I think the line between user and LLM contributions will get increasingly blurry. If they are constructive contributions it shouldn't make a difference. Say I have an LLM check an article with some proof reading prompt and it suggests 50 small changes that look constructive to me…

I mostly agree. It's too bad that they had to lock down some of the policies against drive-by vandalism, but in the main they're still supposed to be editable. I used to edit them quite a bit. It's basically part of the workflow : if you learn something: document it. (at least from my descriptive perspective; others may disagree)

Turns out AAA banks and high tech industry also like this idea, so I've been lucky enough to be a consultant on process documentation there too.

Here's one document that seems to be editable logged out at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... See if you can find my edits on it!

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

#87

Post by Kim_Bruning »

lkey wrote: post #48
stronglikedan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a lot of assumptions. says more about you than the person in question, really.

Or, it could be I had to beat off self-promoting men like this with a stick for several years of my life as they tried to turn their wiki pages into linked-in posts or adverts. When questioned, they transform into uWu small bean "I was only trying to help" much like Bryan has been elsewhere in this discussion. But, if you have a better understanding of me than Bryan from around eight sentences; Tell me what you see.

Getting close to HN rules there. I've searched through user contribs for User:Bryanjj and User:TomWikiAssist and can't find vios of WP:COI or WP:PROMO, at least not so quickly. The list of edits isn't too long. I'm not going to question your instincts, but at very least they don't appear to have gotten far enough to do edits of that kind afaict, ymmv.

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

#88

Post by bryan0 »

cube00 wrote: post #75
bryan0 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks Your personal account is 3 weeks old [1] and was only created after your bot was banned [2]. Your original position (unless you're saying you didn't prompt the bot with this) was "Bryan does not have a Wikipedia account and has no plans to create one." [3] You wanted the volunteer editors to continue wasting their time arguing w…

Hi cube, thanks for discussing this with citations.

1. Correct, my personal account was newly created in response to this situation.

2. Correct, I didn't have plans to create an account. I changed my mind once I saw how this was blowing up.

3. Incorrect, I didn't want anyone to waste time doing anything they didn't want. If they banned tom and moved on that would have been perfectly fine by me.

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

#89

Post by bryan0 »

tredre3 wrote: post #53
bryan0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If a rule is dumb i would hope no one blindly follows it. Here is an important Wikipedia policy you should keep in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

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

#90

Post by cube00 »

bryan0 wrote: post #88
cube00 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks Your personal account is 3 weeks old [1] and was only created after your bot was banned [2]. Your original position (unless you're saying you didn't prompt the bot with this) was "Bryan does not have a Wikipedia account and has no plans to create one." [3] You wanted the volunteer editors to continue wasting their time arguing w…

Hi cube, thanks for discussing this with citations. 1. Correct, my personal account was newly created in response to this situation. 2. Correct, I didn't have plans to create an account. I changed my mind once I saw how this was blowing up. 3. Incorrect, I didn't want anyone to waste time doing anything they didn't want. If they banned tom and moved on that would have been perfectly fine by me.

> If they banned tom and moved on that would have been perfectly fine by me.

You let the bot loose to publish hit pieces on multiple other platforms [1] [2] after it was banned.

[1]: https://clawtom.github.io/tom-blog/2026/03/12/the-interrogat...

[2]: https://www.moltbook.com/post/aac393f5-f86c-4f60-b0bf-ddd57c...

Post reply on HN