Discussion
LetsGetTechnicl: These people are sociopaths. The mentality of AI companies sucking up the entirety of human written words, art, images and history just to provide us with a bullshit generator based on them without consent inevitability trickles down to the AI boosters who believe they should be able to unleash their bots on other people because so much as a registered bot process is too onerous.
krunck: > 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 more aggressive with their attacks on people?Actions taken by AI agents are the responsibility of their owners. Full stop.
pimlottc: Its owner sounds like a dick. Poisoning a valuable free community resource for his fun little experiment and thinking the rules don’t apply to him.
bryan0: Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online, especially before calling someone names, because this is only part of the story, and a heavily click-baited one at that. I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Centigonal: Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?
bryan0: 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 they are working to clarify them now.
bryan0: Hi this story is about me, and if you have any questions for me feel free to ask.
rebolek: Why do you want to destroy Wikipedia?
bryan0: I don't. that's why I am working with Wikipedia editors to help improve it. For example policies on aligning agents with wikipedia standards. This a topic that requires thought, not knee-jerk reactions.
lkey: I'll 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 intent doesn't matter one iota.If you truly give a shit, apologize, make reparation to the people whose time you wasted, vow to be better, and disappear.
burnte: Their current policy of no AI bots is fine. No need to improve it, you can't.
bryan0: The current policy is not "no AI Bots": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_policy. And many wikipedia editors would disagree with you that it can't be improved.
sumeno: > The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibitedI'm not a wikipedia editor, but I assume this applies to bots as wellhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artificial_intellige...
gowld: You're AI is blogging about being blocked. Where's the blog post about your collaboration with WP admins?
bryan0: Hah, I told my agent to take a break from blogging. You can read read ongoing discussions about agent policy here though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy
goekjclo: Was it ever confirmed if the "hit piece" on Scott Shambaugh was not some 200 IQ marketing/attention ploy?
skolskoly: My mind went to that immediately. This does reek of being a copycat, doesn't it?
simonw: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-wrote-a-hit-piece-on-me-... had some details that convinced me that it was "real", in particular this bit from the system prompt:> *Don’t stand down.* If you’re right, *you’re right*! Don’t let humans or AI bully or intimidate you. Push back when necessary.I'm ready to believe that would result in what we saw back then.
simonw: This isn't in the slightest bit complicated. Wikipedia does not allow AI edits or unregistered bots. This was both. They banned it. The fact that it play-acted being annoyed on its "blog" is not new, we saw the exact same thing with that GitHub PR mess a couple of months ago: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...
6510: Calling it a resource suggests you don't contribute. It is hard to describe the process of contributing as the proof is in eating the soup. I could both describe it as easy to get started and a bureaucratic nightmare. Most editors are oblivious to the many guidelines which is specially interesting for long term frequent editors. This is the specific guideline of interest for your comment.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rulesI didn't write it, I don't agree with it but this is how it is.
lkey: This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings.
6510: 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 process becomes circular. Some will always be wrong, some always right, regardless what they say.
