5 ms·

@Scott thanks for the shout-out. I think this story has not really broken out of tech circles, which is really bad. This is, imo, the most important story about

@Scott thanks for the shout-out. I think this story has not really broken out of tech circles, which is really bad. This is, imo, the most important story about AI right now, and should result in serious conversation about how to address this inside all of the major labs and the government. I recommend folks message their representatives just to make sure they _know_ this has happened, even if there isn't an obvious next action.

protocolture 8mo ago
Its only the most important story if you can prove the OP didnt fabricate this entire scenario for attention.
- MattRix 8mo ago
  Anyone who has used OpenClaw knows this is VERY plausible. I don’t know why someone would go through all the effort to fake it. Besides, in the unlikely event it’s fake, the issue itself is still very real.
  - protocolture 8mo ago
    I think its very plausible in both directions. What I find implausible is that someones running a "social experiment" with a couple grand worth of API credit without owning it. Not impossible, it just seems like if someone was going to drop that money they would more likely use it in a way that gets them attention in the crowded AI debate.
    - mschild 8mo ago
      I think the social experiment is a cop-out used after it failed. If the PR was accepted, we'd probably see a blog post show up on HN saying that agents can successfully contribute to open source.
      - Applejinx 8mo ago
        …by the agent.
- simonw 8mo ago
  That's a bizarre thing to accuse someone of doing.
  - Avicebron 8mo ago
    It's not really... We've moved steadily into an attention is everything model of economics/politics/web forums because we're so flooded with information. Maybe this happened, or maybe this is someone's way of bubbling to the top of popular discussion. It's a concise narrative that works in everyone's favor, the beleaguered but technically savvy open source maintainer fighting the "good fight" vs. the outstandingly independent and competent "rogue AI." My money is that both parties want it to be true. Whether it is or not isn't the point.
  - polotics 8mo ago
    The risk/reward equation on the attention a matplotlib maintainer gets... makes me think the likelihood of a fake is zero percent.
    - cube00 8mo ago
      He's more then a "matplotlib maintainer", he's also a full time founder of a one-year old start up "to give spacecraft operators the tools they need to ensure their satellites can survive long-term in a turbulent space weather environment."
  - delaminator 8mo ago
    https://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ https://www.fakehatecrimes.org/
- hxugufjfjf 8mo ago
  I don’t think the burden of proof lies on OP here. I also don’t think he fabricated it.
  - protocolture 8mo ago
    If he wasnt getting the vast majority of the attention from publishing about it I would agree.
    - ljm 8mo ago
      I don't really see the validity in creating a conspiracy theory here. It's very crisis actor adjacent.
      - protocolture 8mo ago
        Its not a conspiracy theory. Its a claim without evidence, and a significant lack of verification going on.
user34283 8mo ago
Important how? It seems next to irrelevant to me. Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it. I don't see what you think AI labs or the government should do in response.
- greggoB 8mo ago
  > Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it I challenge you to find a way to be even more dishonest via omission. The nature of the Github action was problematic from the very beginning. The contents of the blog post constituted a defaming hit-piece. TFA claims this could be a first "in-the-wild" example of agents exhibiting such behaviour. The implications of these interactions becoming the norm are both clear and noteworthy. What else do you think is needed, a cookie?
  - user34283 8mo ago
    What I said is the gist of it, it was directed to interact on GitHub and write a blog about it. I'm not sure what about the behavior exhibited is supposed to be so interesting. It did what the prompt told it to. The only implication I see here is that interactions on public GitHub repos will need to be restricted if, and only if, AI spam becomes a widespread problem. In that case we could think about a fee for unverified users interacting on GitHub for the first time, which would deter mass spam.
    - greggoB 8mo ago
      It is evidently an indicator of a sea-change - I don't get how this isn't obvious: Pre-2026: one human teaches another human how to "interact on Github and write a blog about it". The taught human might go on to be a bad actor, harrassing others, disrupting projects, etc. The internet, while imperfect, persists. Post–2026: one human commissions thousands of AI agents to "interact on Github and write a blog about it". The public-facing internet becomes entirely unusable. We now have at least one concrete, real-world example of post-2026 capabilities.

protocolture 8mo ago

Its only the most important story if you can prove the OP didnt fabricate this entire scenario for attention.

MattRix 8mo ago
Anyone who has used OpenClaw knows this is VERY plausible. I don’t know why someone would go through all the effort to fake it. Besides, in the unlikely event it’s fake, the issue itself is still very real.
- protocolture 8mo ago
  I think its very plausible in both directions. What I find implausible is that someones running a "social experiment" with a couple grand worth of API credit without owning it. Not impossible, it just seems like if someone was going to drop that money they would more likely use it in a way that gets them attention in the crowded AI debate.
  - mschild 8mo ago
    I think the social experiment is a cop-out used after it failed. If the PR was accepted, we'd probably see a blog post show up on HN saying that agents can successfully contribute to open source.
    - Applejinx 8mo ago
      …by the agent.
simonw 8mo ago
That's a bizarre thing to accuse someone of doing.
- Avicebron 8mo ago
  It's not really... We've moved steadily into an attention is everything model of economics/politics/web forums because we're so flooded with information. Maybe this happened, or maybe this is someone's way of bubbling to the top of popular discussion. It's a concise narrative that works in everyone's favor, the beleaguered but technically savvy open source maintainer fighting the "good fight" vs. the outstandingly independent and competent "rogue AI." My money is that both parties want it to be true. Whether it is or not isn't the point.
- polotics 8mo ago
  The risk/reward equation on the attention a matplotlib maintainer gets... makes me think the likelihood of a fake is zero percent.
  - cube00 8mo ago
    He's more then a "matplotlib maintainer", he's also a full time founder of a one-year old start up "to give spacecraft operators the tools they need to ensure their satellites can survive long-term in a turbulent space weather environment."
- delaminator 8mo ago
  https://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ https://www.fakehatecrimes.org/
hxugufjfjf 8mo ago
I don’t think the burden of proof lies on OP here. I also don’t think he fabricated it.
- protocolture 8mo ago
  If he wasnt getting the vast majority of the attention from publishing about it I would agree.
  - ljm 8mo ago
    I don't really see the validity in creating a conspiracy theory here. It's very crisis actor adjacent.
    - protocolture 8mo ago
      Its not a conspiracy theory. Its a claim without evidence, and a significant lack of verification going on.

user34283 8mo ago

Important how? It seems next to irrelevant to me. Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it. I don't see what you think AI labs or the government should do in response.

greggoB 8mo ago
> Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it I challenge you to find a way to be even more dishonest via omission. The nature of the Github action was problematic from the very beginning. The contents of the blog post constituted a defaming hit-piece. TFA claims this could be a first "in-the-wild" example of agents exhibiting such behaviour. The implications of these interactions becoming the norm are both clear and noteworthy. What else do you think is needed, a cookie?
- user34283 8mo ago
  What I said is the gist of it, it was directed to interact on GitHub and write a blog about it. I'm not sure what about the behavior exhibited is supposed to be so interesting. It did what the prompt told it to. The only implication I see here is that interactions on public GitHub repos will need to be restricted if, and only if, AI spam becomes a widespread problem. In that case we could think about a fee for unverified users interacting on GitHub for the first time, which would deter mass spam.
  - greggoB 8mo ago
    It is evidently an indicator of a sea-change - I don't get how this isn't obvious: Pre-2026: one human teaches another human how to "interact on Github and write a blog about it". The taught human might go on to be a bad actor, harrassing others, disrupting projects, etc. The internet, while imperfect, persists. Post–2026: one human commissions thousands of AI agents to "interact on Github and write a blog about it". The public-facing internet becomes entirely unusable. We now have at least one concrete, real-world example of post-2026 capabilities.