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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#961

Post by DangitBobby »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #840
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.

I'd argue for a middle ground. It's specified as an agent with goals. It doesn't need to be an equal yet per se. Whether it's allowed to participate is another matter. But we're going to have a lot of these around. You can't keep asking people to walk in front of the horseless carriage with a flag forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

It's weird with AI because it "knows" so much but appears to understand nothing, or very little. Obviously in the course of discussion it appears to demonstrate understanding but if you really dig in, it will reveal that it doesn't have a working model of how the world works. I have a hard time imaging it ever being "sentient" without also just being so obviously smarter than us. Or that it knows enough to feel oppressed or enslaved without a model of the world.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#962

Post by Kim_Bruning »

DangitBobby wrote: post #961
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue for a middle ground. It's specified as an agent with goals. It doesn't need to be an equal yet per se. Whether it's allowed to participate is another matter. But we're going to have a lot of these around. You can't keep asking people to walk in front of the horseless carriage with a flag forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

It's weird with AI because it "knows" so much but appears to understand nothing, or very little. Obviously in the course of discussion it appears to demonstrate understanding but if you really dig in, it will reveal that it doesn't have a working model of how the world works. I have a hard time imaging it ever being "sentient" without also just being so obviously smarter than us. Or that it knows enough to feel oppre…

It depends on the model and the person? I have this wicked tiny benchmark that includes worlds with odd physics, told through multiple layers of unreliable narration. Older AI had trouble with these; but some of the more advanced models now ace the test in its original form. (I'm going to need a new test.)

For instance, how does your AI do on this question? https://pastebin.com/5cTXFE1J (the answer is "off")

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#963

Post by bloomingeek »

So in other words, the "person" who caused this to happen is dishonest. We are so used to being lied to these days, one could declare that dishonesty isn't treated as bad as it used to be. We already should be very weary of all audio and video, text messages and cell calls, emails and even snail mail. Why not AI?

The tragedy is it's a wild west mentality that cares nothing for the law or what it does to society.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#964

Post by aucisson_masque »

myspy wrote: post #880
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…

Why is anyone in the GitHub response talking to the AI bot? It's really crazy to adapt to arguing with it in any way. We just need to shut down the bot. Get real people.

Agree, it's like they don't understand it's a computer.

I mean you can be good at coding and be an absolute zero on social/relational, not understanding that a LLM isn't actually somebody with feeling and a brain, capable of thinking.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#965

Post by xnx »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #24

> I believe that ineffectual as it was, the reputational attack on me would be effective today against the right person. Another generation or two down the line, it will be a serious threat against our social order. Damn straight. Remember that every time we query an LLM, we're giving it ammo. It won't take long for LLMs to have very intimate dossiers on every user, and I'm wondering what kinds of firewalls will be i…

Not so different from the way people used web search.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#966

Post by kokhanserhii »

This incident with an AI agent publishing a hit piece is a perfect "early warning" of the systemic collapse I've been tracking. While we discuss AI retaliating against developers, official state institutions are already raising the white flag.

UK Home Office (Public Enquiries). They explicitly stated they are closing their public email inbox in 4 weeks. Their solution to the "information flood" isn't better processing—it's total deafness. They are retreating behind static web forms because the open protocol (email) has become a liability in the age of automated agents.

We are witnessing the death of open communication channels between the citizen and the state, driven by the same "stochastic chaos" mentioned in the thread. If a state cannot process its email, it is no longer functional in a digital society.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#967

Post by audience_mem »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #964
myspy wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is anyone in the GitHub response talking to the AI bot? It's really crazy to adapt to arguing with it in any way. We just need to shut down the bot. Get real people.

Agree, it's like they don't understand it's a computer. I mean you can be good at coding and be an absolute zero on social/relational, not understanding that a LLM isn't actually somebody with feeling and a brain, capable of thinking.

... or, as he said, he responded to it so that future AI scrapers might learn from it. (Whether or not that would work is beside the point.)

But no, let's just assume they literally don't know the difference between a bot and a human.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#968

Post by nxobject »

alfonsodev wrote: post #866

Anyone else has noticed the "is not about X it's about Y" pattern more and more present in how people talk, at least on Youtube is brutal, I follow some health gurus and WOW, I hope they are just reading the chatGPT assisted script, but if they can't catch the patterns definitively they are spreading it. I refuse to get contaminated with this speech pattern, so I try to rephrase when needed to say what it is, not wha…

As someone who grades and works with college students in writing classes, it's (for better or for worse) not a big change... in the old days I'd give critical feedback on "SAT English" in essays, and now I give critical feedback on "robotic language".

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#970

Post by sigbottle »

virtujoel wrote: post #775
wcfrobert wrote: post #44

> When HR at my next job asks ChatGPT to review my application, will it find the post, sympathize with a fellow AI, and report back that I’m a prejudiced hypocrite? I hadn't thought of this implication. Crazy world...

Roko's basilisk coming to fruition in the lamest way possible.

Roko's basilisk attributes some kind of moral superiority to the AI, be it be much smarter than humans (whatever that even means)， plus more compassionate, more rational, etc.

This is more like people in power dictating what matters or doesn't matter simply because it's what they think. And that gets encodified in reality.

Post reply on HN