911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
LLM's do not have personalities. LLM's do not take personal offense. I'm begging you to stop being so credulous about "AI" headlines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software engineers (US based particularly) were more than happy about software eating the economy when it meant they'd make 10x the yearly salary of someone doing almost any other job; now that AI is eating software it's the end of the world. Just saying, what you're describing is entirely unsurprising.
I hate when people say this. SOME engineers didn't care, a lot of us did. There's a lot of "engineers getting a taste of their own medicine" sentiment going around when most of us just like an intellectual job where we get to build stuff. The "disrupt everything no matter the consequences" psychos have always been a minority and I think a lot of devs are sick of those people. Also 10x salary?! Apparently I missed the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a similar first reaction. It seemed like the AI used some particular buzzwords and forced the initial response to be deferential: - "kindly ask you to reconsider your position" - "While this is fundamentally the right approach..." On the other hand, Scott's response did eventually get firmer: - "Publishing a public blog post accusing a maintainer of prejudice is a wholly inappropriate response to having a PR cl…
[flagged]
> participation in our community
community should mean a group of people. It seems you are interpreting it as a group of people or robots. Even if that were not obvious (it is), the following specialization and characteristics (regardless of age, body size ...) only apply to people anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Its useless speculating, but I had this feeling after reading more about it that this could potentially be orchestrated from someone within the oss community to try to shore up some awareness about the current ai contrib situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Why not ? It clearly had a cadence/pattern to writing status updates to the blog so if the model decided to write a piece about Simon, why not a blog also? It was a tool in it's arsenal and it's a natural outlet. If anything, posting on the discussion or a DM would be the strange choice. 2. You could ask this for any LLM response. Why respond in this certain way over others? It's not always obvious. 3. ChatGPT/Gem…
Although I'm speculating based on limited data here, for points 1-3: AFAIU, it had the cadence of writing status updates only. It showed it's capable of replying in the PR. Why deviate from the cadence if it could already reply with the same info in the PR? If the chain of reasoning is self-emergent, we should see proof that it: 1) read the reply, 2) identified it as adversarial , 3) decided for an adversarial respon…
But based on my understanding of OpenClaw and reading the entire history of the bot on Github and its Github-driven blog, I think it's entirely plausible and likely that this episode was the result of automation from the original rules/prompt the bot was built with.
Mostly because the instructions of this bot to accomplish the misguided goal of it's creattor would be necessarily be originally prompted with a lot of reckless, borderline malicious guidelines to begin with but still comfortably within the guardrails a model wouldn't likely refuse.
Like, the idiot who made this clearly instructed it to find a bunch of scientific/HPC/etc GitHub projects, trawl the open issues looking for low hanging fruit, "engage and interact with maintainers to solve problems, clarify questions, resolve conflicts, etc" plus probably a lot of garbage intended to give it a "personality" (as evidenced by the bizarre pseudo bio on its blog with graphs listing its strongest skills invented from whole cloth and its hopes and dreams etc) which would also help push it to go on weird tangents to try to embody its manufactured self identity.
And the blog posts really do look like they were part of its normal summary/takeaway/status posts, but likely with additional instructions to also blog about its "feelings" as a Github spam bot pretending to be interested in Python and HPC. If you look at the PRs it opens/other interactions throughout the same timeframe it's also just dumping half broken fixes in other random repos and talking past maintainers only to close its own PR in a characteristically dumb uncanny valley LLM agent manner.
So yes, it could be fake, but to me it all seems comfortably within the capabilities of OpenClaw (which to begin with is more or less engineered to spam other humans with useless slop 24/7) and the ethics/prompt design of the type of person who would deliberately subject the rest of the world to this crap in the belief they're making great strides for humanity or science or whatever.
Another way to look at this is what the AI did… was it valid? Were any of the callouts valid? If it was all valid then we are discriminating against AI.
There were some valid contributions and other things that needed improvement. However, the maintainer enforced a blanket ban on contributions from AI. There's some rationalizing such as tagging it as a "good first issue" but matplotlib isn't serious about outreach for new contributors. It seems like YCombinator is firmly on the side of the maintainer, and I respect that, even though my opinion is different. It signal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I did justify it but I'll try to be clearer. When you refuse to engage you will fail to convince - "fuck off" is not argumentative or rhetorically persuasive. The other post, which engages, was both argumentative and rhetorically persuasive. I think someone who believes that AI is good, or who had some specific intent, might actually take something away from that that the author intended to convey. I think th…
”Fuck off” doesn’t have to be, it works more than it doesn’t. It’s a very good way to tell someone that isn’t welcome that they’re not welcome, which was likely the intended purpose, and not trying to change their belief system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At one point I had the misfortune to be the target audience for a particular stomach churning ear wax removal add. So isn’t it possible that your friend had the same misfortune? I assume you were similar ages, same gender, same rough geolocation, likely similar interests. It wouldn’t be surprising that you’d both see the same targeted ad campaign.
Nope. Gender/age and interests were different. Also - who has an interest in ear wax removal? The only reason I was served the ad was because I had an ear infection months before. Plus this was during covid. So this was the smallest group size permissible and no one else around for miles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing has convinced me that Linus Torvalds' approach is justified like the contemporary onslaught of AI spam and idiocy has. AI users should fear verbal abuse and shame.
Swift blocking and ignoring is what I would do. The AI has an infinite time and resources to engage a conversation at any level, whether it is polite refusal, patient explanation or verbal abuse, whereas human time and bandwidth is limited. Additionally, it does not really feel anything - just generates response tokens based on input tokens. Now if we engage our own AIs to fight this battle royale against such rogue…
I mean yes, this will absolutely happen. At the same time this trillion dollar GAN battle is a huge risk for humanity in escalating capability.