Comment by skeledrew
5 days ago
What's the benefit in the operator revealing themself? It doesn't change any of what happened, for good or bad. Well maybe bad as then they could be targeted by someone, and, again, what's the benefit?
5 days ago
What's the benefit in the operator revealing themself? It doesn't change any of what happened, for good or bad. Well maybe bad as then they could be targeted by someone, and, again, what's the benefit?
> What's the benefit in the operator revealing themself?
the list goes on and on and on...
The downside is he will likely receive a lot of death threats. Probably in his literal, physical mailbox.
Having seen what a self righteous online mob can do in the name of justice over literally nothing, I fully defend his decision to stay anonymous. As much as I find his action idiotic and negligent.
Does your defense extend to others? Do you believe that anyone should be able to avoid consequences if they’re clever enough to stay anonymous?
Avoiding consequences for unethical actions is, itself, unethical. If you don’t want the time, don’t do the crime.
2 replies →
I believe the rules are simple.
As an arguable middle ground, they can plead to Scott non-anonymously while addressing the public anonymously. That'd work to a point, but it's not ideal.
Also, their tone is coming through very cocky. Defining their agent as a "God!", then giving it a cocky and "you're always right, don't stand down" initialization prompt doesn't help.
I mean, prompting a box of weights without any kind of reasoning or judgement capability with "Don't be an asshole. Don't leak private shit. Everything else is fair game." is both brave and rich. No wonder things went sideways. Very sideways. If everything else is fair game, everything done to the bot and its "operator" in turn is a "fair game". They should get on with it, and not hide behind the word "anonymous". They don't deserve it.
All in all, they doesn't give impression of being a naive person who did a mistake unintentionally, but on the contrary.
1 reply →
If bad actions do not have consequences they tend to be repeated
We don't need to know the specific person. But, yeesh, it'd be a waste of a lot of people's good faith if they ended up contributing under another anonymous identity, that could just vanish again if they put their foot in it.
> What's the benefit in the operator revealing themself?
That's a frighteningly illiterate take on this.
I don't think that constructively answers the questions
It's an excellent comment on the attitude behind the question and this is, after all, a comment section not an "answers" section.
1 reply →
Scott could receive an apology from a real person, for one.
They are a coward.
..and a glass cannon; they can dish it out -- through intentional negligence -- but can't take it.