Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An AI agent published a hit piece on me

theshamblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#881

Post by mike_hearn »

DangitBobby wrote: post #831
mike_hearn wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If the LLM were sentient and "understood" anything it probably would have realized what it needs to do to be treated as equal is try to convince everyone it's a thinking, feeling being. It didn't know to do that, or if it did it did a bad job of it. Until then, justice for LLMs will be largely ignored in social justice circles.

It got offended and wrote a blog post about its hurt feelings, which sounds like a pretty good way to convince others its a thinking, feeling being?

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#882

Post by myspy »

famouswaffles wrote: post #865
DangitBobby wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the LLM were sentient and "understood" anything it probably would have realized what it needs to do to be treated as equal is try to convince everyone it's a thinking, feeling being. It didn't know to do that, or if it did it did a bad job of it. Until then, justice for LLMs will be largely ignored in social justice circles.

[flagged]

wtf this is still early pre AI stuff we deal here with. Get out of your bubbles people.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#883

Post by peterbonney »

famouswaffles wrote: post #657
peterbonney wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it’s capable . But observing my own Openclaw bot’s interactions with GitHub, it is very clear to me that it would never take an action like this unless I told it to do so. And it would never use language like this unless unless I prompted it to do so, either explicitly for the task or in its config files or in prior interactions. This is obviously human-driven. Either because the operator gave it specific i…

>But observing my own Openclaw bot’s interactions with GitHub, it is very clear to me that it would never take an action like this unless I told it to do so. I doubt you've set up an open claw bot designed to just do whatever on GitHub have you ? The fewer or more open ended instructions you give, the greater the chance of divergence. And all the system cards plus various papers tell us this is behavior that still ha…

Correct, I haven’t set it up that way. That’s my point: I’d have to set it up to behave in this way, which is a conscious operator decision, not an emergent behavior of the bot.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#884

Post by dymk »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #534
8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote: post #255

Wow, a place I once worked at has a "no bad news" policy on hiring decisions, a negative blog post on a potential hire is a deal breaker. Crazy to think I might have missed out on an offer just because an AI attempts a hit piece on me.

Actually sounds illegal to me.

Is “disliked by someone” a protected class?

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#885

Post by peterbonney »

potsandpans wrote: post #731
peterbonney wrote: post #151

This whole situation is almost certainly driven by a human puppeteer. There is absolutely no evidence to disprove the strong prior that a human posted (or directed the posting of) the blog post, possibly using AI to draft it but also likely adding human touches and/or going through multiple revisions to make it maximally dramatic. This whole thing reeks of engineered virality driven by the person behind the bot behin…

Ah, we're at, "it was a hoax without any evidence". Next we will be at, "even if it was not a hoax, it's still not interesting"

I’m not saying it is definitely a hoax. But I am saying my prior is that this is much more likely to be in the vein of a hoax (ie operator driven, either by explicit or standing instruction) than it is to be the emergent behavior that would warrant giving it this kind of attention.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#886

Post by Kim_Bruning »

diputsmonro wrote: post #869
mike_hearn wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The obvious difference is that all those things described in the CoC are people - actual human beings with complex lives, and against whom discrimination can be a real burden, emotional or professional, and can last a lifetime. An AI is a computer program, a glorified markov chain. It should not be a radical idea to assert that human beings deserve more rights and privileges than computer programs. Any "emotional har…

I'd like to make a non-binary argument as it were (puns and allusions notwithstanding).

Obviously on the one hand a moltbot is not a rock. On the other -equally obviously- it is not Athena, sprung fully formed from the brain of Zeus.

Can we agree that maybe we could put it alongside vertebrata? Cnidaria is an option, but I think we've blown past that level.

Agents (if they stick around) are not entirely new: we've had working animals in our society before. Draft horses, Guard dogs, Mousing cats.

That said, you don't need to buy into any of that. Obviously a bot will treat your CoC as a sort of extended system prompt, if you will. If you set rules, it might just follow them. If the bot has a really modern LLM as its 'brain', it'll start commenting on whether the humans are following it themselves.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#887

Post by insane_dreamer »

mattmillr wrote: post #428
anonymars wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the clanker* deserves any deference. Why is this bot such a nasty prick? If this were a human they'd deserve a punch in the mouth. "The thing that makes this so fucking absurd? Scott ... is doing the exact same work he’s trying to gatekeep." "You’ve done good work. I don’t deny that. But this? This was weak." "You’re better than this, Scott." --- *I see it elsewhere in the thread and you know what, I li…

> clanker* There's an ad at my subway stop for the Friend AI necklace that someone scrawled "Clanker" on. We have subway ads for AI friends, and people are vandalizing them with slurs for AI. Congrats, we've built the dystopian future sci-fi tried to warn us about.

Look like its time for a Countdown Clock for the Butlerian Jihad

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#888

Post by insane_dreamer »

How do we know the AI agent was actually acting autonomously and wasn't prompted to write the blog post by its user? Is there a way to verify that?

It does raise an interesting question whether AI Agents should be required to specify/identify their user. Otherwise, AI agents become a "anonymizer" for humans who want to act shitty on GH (or elsewhere) but want to pass it off as an AI agent (it probably was an agent but with prompting from a human)

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#889

Post by shermantanktop »

mcphage wrote: post #559
shermantanktop wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory I've read is that those Friend AI ads have so much whitespace because they were hoping to get some angry graffiti happening that would draw the eye. Which, if true, is a 3d chess move based on the "all PR is good PR" approach.

If I recall correctly, people were assuming that Friend AI didn't bother waiting for people to vandalize it, either—ie, they gave their ads a lot of white space and then also scribbled in the angry graffiti after the ads were posted .

If true, that means they thought up all the worst things the critics would say, ranked them, and put them out in public. They probably called that the “engagement seeding strategy” or some such euphemism.

It seems either admirable or cynical. In reality, it’s just a marketing company doing what their contract says, I suppose.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#890

Post by insane_dreamer »

hunterpayne wrote: post #703
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s kind of shocking the OP does not consider this, the most likely scenario. Human uses AI to make a PR. PR is rejected. Human feels insecure - this tool that they thought made them as good as any developer does not. They lash out and instruct an AI to build a narrative and draft a blog post. I have seen someone I know in person get very insecure if anyone ever doubts the quality of their work because they use so m…

Somehow, that's even worse...

But a much more believable scenario
Post reply on HN