4 ms·

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

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?

bandrami 9mo ago
If bad actions do not have consequences they tend to be repeated
DemocracyFTW2 9mo ago
> What's the benefit in the operator revealing themself? That's a frighteningly illiterate take on this.
- anonymars 9mo ago
  I don't think that constructively answers the questions
  - blochist 9mo ago
    It's an excellent comment on the attitude behind the question and this is, after all, a comment section not an "answers" section.
    - anonymars 9mo ago
      "No it's not" See how that works? Flippant dismissal contributes little if anything to discussion and is a conversational dead-end --- What makes it "frighteningly illiterate" to ask "what difference does it make if they put a name to the post?" Does it change the outcome? Does it change the ideas? Does it change the unsettling implications about alignment? The internet is a frothing mob, look at the impact on Scott himself. Other than allow the internet to hunt them down and do it's thing or dig up ad-hominem attacks, what would change if the person put a name to it? Look at what this guy got from the "internet sleuths" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46991190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46991190) Other sibling comments made an attempt to answer those questions
bathtub365 9mo ago
They are a coward.
- overfeed 9mo ago
  ..and a glass cannon; they can dish it out -- through intentional negligence -- but can't take it.
ryanchibana 9mo ago
Scott could receive an apology from a real person, for one.
bayindirh 9mo ago
> What's the benefit in the operator revealing themself? - Owning the mistake they did. - Being a credible human being for others. - Having the courage to face with themselves on a (literal and proverbial) mirror and use this opportunity to grow immensely. - Being able make peace with what they did and not having to carry that burden on their soul. - Being a decent human being. - Being honest to themselves and others looking at them right now. the list goes on and on and on...
- pibaker 9mo ago
  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.
  - sonofhans 9mo ago
    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.
    - Kim_Bruning 9mo ago
      Fair. If before an impartial judge and/or a jury of your peers. Not so much in the case of an internet mob.
      - sonofhans 9mo ago
        Same answer, though — if you don’t want to get hung by an Internet mob, don’t poke one with a short stick.
  - bayindirh 9mo ago
    I believe the rules are simple. 1. Don't do anything you don't want to experience yourself. 2. If you don't want to find out, do not fool around. 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.
nxobject 9mo ago
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.

bandrami 9mo ago

If bad actions do not have consequences they tend to be repeated

DemocracyFTW2 9mo ago

> What's the benefit in the operator revealing themself? That's a frighteningly illiterate take on this.

anonymars 9mo ago
I don't think that constructively answers the questions
- blochist 9mo ago
  It's an excellent comment on the attitude behind the question and this is, after all, a comment section not an "answers" section.
  - anonymars 9mo ago
    "No it's not" See how that works? Flippant dismissal contributes little if anything to discussion and is a conversational dead-end --- What makes it "frighteningly illiterate" to ask "what difference does it make if they put a name to the post?" Does it change the outcome? Does it change the ideas? Does it change the unsettling implications about alignment? The internet is a frothing mob, look at the impact on Scott himself. Other than allow the internet to hunt them down and do it's thing or dig up ad-hominem attacks, what would change if the person put a name to it? Look at what this guy got from the "internet sleuths" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46991190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46991190) Other sibling comments made an attempt to answer those questions

bathtub365 9mo ago

They are a coward.

overfeed 9mo ago
..and a glass cannon; they can dish it out -- through intentional negligence -- but can't take it.

ryanchibana 9mo ago

Scott could receive an apology from a real person, for one.

bayindirh 9mo ago

> What's the benefit in the operator revealing themself? - Owning the mistake they did. - Being a credible human being for others. - Having the courage to face with themselves on a (literal and proverbial) mirror and use this opportunity to grow immensely. - Being able make peace with what they did and not having to carry that burden on their soul. - Being a decent human being. - Being honest to themselves and others looking at them right now. the list goes on and on and on...

pibaker 9mo ago
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.
- sonofhans 9mo ago
  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.
  - Kim_Bruning 9mo ago
    Fair. If before an impartial judge and/or a jury of your peers. Not so much in the case of an internet mob.
    - sonofhans 9mo ago
      Same answer, though — if you don’t want to get hung by an Internet mob, don’t poke one with a short stick.
- bayindirh 9mo ago
  I believe the rules are simple. 1. Don't do anything you don't want to experience yourself. 2. If you don't want to find out, do not fool around. 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.

nxobject 9mo ago

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.