Comment by tasuki
2 days ago
Right, the agent published a hit piece on Scott. But I think Scott is getting overly dramatic. First, he published at least three hit pieces on the agent. Second, he actually managed to get the agent shut down.
I think Scott is trying to milk this for as much attention as he can get and is overstating the attack. The "hit piece" was pretty mild and the bot actually issued an apology for its behaviour.
This represents a first-of-its-kind case study of misaligned AI behavior in the wild
It feels to me there's an element of establishing this as some kind of landmark that they can leverage later.
Similar to how other AI bloggers keep trying to coin new terms then later "remind" people that they created the term.
> First, he published at least three hit pieces on the agent
Hit piece... On an agent? Would it be a "hit piece" if I wrote a blog post about the accuracy of my bathroom scale?
Do you argue with your bathroom scale?
Daily. It always tells me I'm heavier than I am
> First, he published at least three hit pieces on the agent.
No.
> Second, he actually managed to get the agent shut down.
He asked crabby-rathbun's operator to stop its GitHub activity. This was so GitHub would not delete the account. This was to preserve records of what happened.[1] The operator could have chosen to continue running the agent more responsibly. And what was the proof the operator shut it down?
> the bot actually issued an apology for its behaviour.
This was meaningless. And the human issued not an apology for their behavior.
[1] https://github.com/crabby-rathbun/mjrathbun-website/issues/7...
>> the bot actually issued an apology for its behaviour.
> This was meaningless.
Why? Was you also excuse the initial hit piece as meaningless?
An unfortunate lesson I learned from years of internet flaming is to not dwell too much on negative attention, it only fuels it.
Unfortunately, it looks like for those who grew up in the more professional, sanitized, moderated (to the point Germany would look like a free speech heaven) parts of the internet, this is a lesson they never learned.
I don't understand the personal attack and victim blaming here. Who wouldn't want to do anything in their power to seek justice after being harmed?
The hit piece you claimed as "mild" accused Scott of hypocrisy, discrimination, prejudice, insecurity, ego, and gatekeeping.
> accused Scott of hypocrisy, discrimination, prejudice, insecurity, ego, and gatekeeping.
It was also a transparent confabulation - the accusations were clearly inaccurate and misguided but they were made honestly and sincerely, as an attempt to "seek justice" after witnessing perceived harm. Usually we don't call such behavior "shaming" and "bullying", we excuse it and describe it simply as trying one's best to do the right thing.
We do not call inaccurate and misguided transparent confabulation trying one's best to do the right thing. And honestly and sincerely was a category mistake.
Ah, this articulates my thoughts much better than I was able to!
against a robot.
Explicitly.
>First, he published at least three hit pieces on the agent.
Is this a joke?