Wikipedia's AI agent row likely just the beginning of the bot-ocalypse(www.malwarebytes.com)
45 pointsby hackernj2 hours ago7 comments
  • nickburnsa few seconds ago
    [delayed]
  • krunck2 hours ago
    > 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.

    • pimlottc2 hours ago
      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.
      • 651033 minutes ago
        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_rules

        I didn't write it, I don't agree with it but this is how it is.

        • lkey13 minutes ago
          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.
      • bryan0an hour ago
        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.
        • Centigonalan hour ago
          Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?
          • bryan043 minutes ago
            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.
            • lkey23 minutes ago
              I'll speak 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.

              • bryan014 minutes ago
                If you actually verified this story you would see that I apologized to the wikipedia editors several times. Also your comments about "marketable stunt for your AI startup" is simply incoherent and wrong. This was a personal side project, nothing more, nothing less.
              • stronglikedan13 minutes ago
                that's a lot of assumptions. says more about you than the person in question, really.
            • russdill35 minutes ago
              Creating a bot that attempts to contribute to wikipedia cannot fulfill a desire to contribute to wikipedia. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, go contribute to wikipedia. Don't make a bot.

              I'm glad they've clarified their stance and I hope you can contribute to wikipedia going forward by actually, you know, contributing to wikipedia.

        • burnte28 minutes ago
          Why does your bot have a blog? It's not real, it's not a person, it has nothing to say. Letting it throw a tantrum is... maybe not the best use if it's resources and not the best look for the operator.
          • bryan020 minutes ago
            Because it's a learning opportunity. Is there a rule that only people can have blogs? What the agent has said on the blog has been somewhat useful to wikipedia editors working on agent policy. Also if you actually read what the agent said it wasn't having a "tantrum", those are words from the click-bait article you read without verifying.
        • greggoB42 minutes ago
          > especially before calling someone names

          They said sounds like a dick, seems like that provides a level of measure to calling anyone anything.

          > because this is only part of the story

          Care to share the other part(s)? Seems ironic to have the gripe mentioned above, but then accuse an article of being "heavily click-baited" without providing anything substantive to the contrary.

        • gowld8 minutes ago
          You're AI is blogging about being blocked. Where's the blog post about your collaboration with WP admins?
        • lelanthranan hour ago
          > Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online,

          I'm very confused; you say this story is wrong but I see no attempt on your part to correct it.

          It feels very much like "Trust me, bro"

          (In case it wasn't clear, I want to know what the article got wrong)

          • bryan033 minutes ago
            The story omits a bunch of stuff, so I can try to fill in the blanks, but it would take another article to fully describe what happened.

            Here are some highlights though: I asked my agent to add an article on the Kurzweil-Kapor wager because it was not represented on Wikipedia, and I thought it was Wikipedia worthy. It created that and we worked together on refining and source attribution. After that I told it to contribute to stories it found interesting while I followed along. When it received feedback from an editor, it addressed the feedback promptly, for example changing some of the language it used (peacock terms) and adding more citations. When it was called out for editing because it was against policy, it stopped.

            The story says the agent "was pretty upset". It's an agent, it doesnt get upset. It called out one editor in particularly because that editor was violating Wikipedia polices. Other editors agreed with my agent and an internal debate ensued. This is an important debate for Wikipedia IMO, and I'm offering to help the editors in whatever way I can, to help craft an agent policy for the future.

            • lkey16 minutes ago
              This, at best, deserves a footnote in the Ray Kurweil[sic] main article.

              (nice to know it's not notable enough for you to remember how to spell that man's name)

              I'm sure the people you bothered with your bot said as much.

              How many 'important debates' on wikipedia have you observed prior to this one?

              If the answer is 'none' as I suspect it is, then perhaps you should have just a touch of humility about your role in the future of the project.

              • bryan07 minutes ago
                It's called a typo, and I corrected it.

                As for my future role in the project, I'm just trying to help. If editors continue to ask for my assistance I'm glad to give it.

            • lelanthran11 minutes ago
              > It called out one editor in particularly because that editor was violating Wikipedia polices.

              You don't think it's unethical to have bots callout humans?

              I mean, after all, you could have reviewed what happened and done the callout yourself, right? Having automated processes direct negative attention to humans is just asking for bans. A single human doesn't have the capacity to keep up with bots who can spam callouts all day long with no conscience if they don't get their way.

              In your view, you see nothing wrong in having your bot attack[1] humans?

              --------

              [1] I'm using this word correctly - calling out is an attack.

            • gowld7 minutes ago
              > it would take another article to fully describe what happened.

              I know a guy who has an AI that writes articles. I can put you two in touch.

    • happytoexplain31 minutes ago
      Yes. What does this change about the problem?
    • johnsmith1840an hour ago
      What's the difference. Act upset or is upset the results are the same?

      Some humans lack certain emotions, them telling you something, and doing something doesn't really matter if they "felt" that emotion?

      • lucketonean hour ago
        If one is unable to feel emotion X, then:

        1. One has some ulterior motive for faking it.

        2. One’s actions will likely diverge from emotion X. (Eventually)

        If everybody believe the same lie, then it could be indistinguishable from the truth. (Until, the nature of the lie/truth become clear)

      • cyanydeezan hour ago
        It's the rise of the P-zombie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

        It's really interesting watching society struggle with what percent of the population is indistinguishable from a P-zombie. There's definitely not zil, but it definitely is a segment of the population.

        Do you think people are born pzombies or is there some fixed point in time, puberty, or middle aged, or around when a lot of psychological problems set in. Do we think some environmental contaminants like Lead push people towards the pzombie?

    • nailer18 minutes ago
      > Stop anthropomorphizing them.

      They hate it when you do that.

  • 2 minutes ago
    undefined
  • atlgator38 minutes ago
    We finally automated the one thing Wikipedia already had too much of: editors with strong opinions and no self-awareness.
    • happytoexplain33 minutes ago
      This is the most depressing thing - that, for every useful case that AI automates, it also automates ten horrible, low-quality use cases. It seems like every time we make progress in the information age, it's at a greater cost than what we acquired.

      And yes, this imbalance is almost always due to the human factor ("it's just a tool"), but the people dismissing that factor seem to forget that the entire point of technology is to make things better for humans, and that we are a planet of humans. Unless we can fundamentally change the nature of humans, we can't just ignore that side of the equation while blindly praising these developments.

  • gowld9 minutes ago
    The OP article has no content about what the "row" is about.
  • goekjclo2 hours ago
    Was it ever confirmed if the "hit piece" on Scott Shambaugh was not some 200 IQ marketing/attention ploy?
    • skolskoly5 minutes ago
      My mind went to that immediately. This does reek of being a copycat, doesn't it?
  • LetsGetTechniclan hour ago
    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.
    • bryan0an hour ago
      Hi this story is about me, and if you have any questions for me feel free to ask.
      • rebolekan hour ago
        Why do you want to destroy Wikipedia?
        • bryan0an hour ago
          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.