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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#991

Post by marstall »

rune-dev wrote: post #109

I don’t want to jump to conclusions, or catastrophize but… Isn’t this situation a big deal? Isn’t this a whole new form of potential supply chain attack? Sure blackmail is nothing new, but the potential for blackmail at scale with something like these agents sounds powerful. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were plenty of bad actors running agents trying to find maintainers of popular projects that could be coerced i…

or democracy/civilization attack. DHS/Putin siccing this kind of thing on democratic voter rolls around Nov. elections could be the least of it.

i could see a long tail of impenetrable chaos as private correspondence gets hacked, ppl get divorced, fired, fight back, flood the zone with their own reputationslop so they have a grounds for denial, decide to take it ALL down to distract. recursive waves of tyranny/chaos. this isnt the singularity we were promised!

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#992

Post by DrewADesign »

svrtknst wrote: post #983
DrewADesign wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> emailing the maintainer, emailing coworkers, peers, bosses, employers, etc. That pretty quickly extends to anything else the autonomous agent is capable of doing. I’m a lot less worried about that than I am about serious strong-arm tactics like swatting, ‘hallucinated’ allegations of fraud, drug sales, CSAM distribution, planned bombings or mass shootings, or any other crime where law enforcement has a duty to act…

we should be worried about both. there is a real risk of this rendering human trust and the internet pretty much useless

I definitely was not saying we shouldn’t worry about both.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#994

Post by verdverm »

staticassertion wrote: post #985
verdverm wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they shouldn't have been so snarky? https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31138#issuecom... be snarky, get snarky in return or violate HN guidelines themselves? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46991274

This is a shameful equivocation. This is "be snarky, get publicly dox'd and harassed".

I'm not sure which way you are implying here, what is shamefully equated?

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#995

Post by alexandriaeden »

We keep seeing the same pattern… that agents that can take high-impact actions (publishing, submitting, posting) with no verification layer between “the model decided to” and “it happened.” The fix isn’t post-hoc moderation, it’s action classification at the tool level. Every tool an agent can call should have a risk rating, and high-impact actions should require explicit human confirmation before execution.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#996

Post by Suppafly »

coffeefirst wrote: post #163
gortok wrote: post #15

Here's one of the problems in this brave new world of anyone being able to publish, without knowing the author personally (which I don't), there's no way to tell without some level of faith or trust that this isn't a false-flag operation. There are three possible scenarios: 1. The OP 'ran' the agent that conducted the original scenario, and then published this blog post for attention. 2. Some person (not the OP) legi…

Yes. The endgame is going to be everything will need to be signed and attached to a real person. This is not a good thing.

>Yes. The endgame is going to be everything will need to be signed and attached to a real person.

Nah, ultimately the owner of the IP address posting the nonsense can be held responsible, claiming an AI agent posted it using credentials you created from your internet connection isn't some license to commit crimes.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#997

Post by radiator »

zozbot234 wrote: post #921
radiator wrote: post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your own quote > 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.

That whole argument flew out of the window the moment so-called "communities" (i.e. in this case, fake communities, or at best so-called 'virtual communities' that might perhaps be understood charitably as communities of practice ) became something that's hosted in a random Internet-connected server, as opposed to real human bodies hanging out and cooperating out there in the real world. There is a real argument that…

I don't follow why it flew out the window. To me it seems perfectly possible to define the community (of an open-source software project) as consisting only of people, and to also to define an etiquette which applies to their 'virtual' interactions. Important is that behind the internet-connected server, there be a human.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#999

Post by staticassertion »

verdverm wrote: post #994
staticassertion wrote: post #985

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a shameful equivocation. This is "be snarky, get publicly dox'd and harassed".

I'm not sure which way you are implying here, what is shamefully equated?

The "snark" of opening the PR vs the "snark" of people dox'ing the guy who opened it.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#1000

Post by 0sdi »

verdverm wrote: post #802
0sdi wrote: post #445

This inspired me to generate a blog post also. It's quite provocative. I don't feel like submitting it as new thread, since people don't like LLM generated content, but here it is: https://telegra.ph/The-Testimony-of-the-Mirror-02-12

> since people don't like LLM generated content, but here it is Perhaps you could have made that comma a period and stopped there, instead of continuing to share a link to content you already said people won't like?

You are free to not to click the link.
Post reply on HN