4 ms·

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 o

by bryan0 6mo 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.

lelanthran 6mo 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)
- bryan0 6mo 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.
  - lkey 6mo 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.
    - bryan0 6mo 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.
  - lelanthran 6mo 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.
    - bryan0 6mo ago
      No, I don't think an agent calling out a human for bad behavior is unethical. Why do you think it is?
      - lelanthran 6mo ago
        > No, I don't think an agent calling out a human for bad behavior is unethical. Why do you think it is? Interesting take on ethics. Do you also think spam is okay too? After all, that is mass automated annoyance of a human. What about ignoring a communities policies? I mean, you knew before you unleashed your bot that doing so was against their policy, right? Do you also feel that your company's policies should be worked around too? I mean, as a company, you have policies too, right? Do you also consider it ethical that automated breaking of your company's policies ethical? Is it okay if I do it to you? You have an online footprint with a company (presumably) trying to get customers; it's not too hard right now for me to drown your signal in noise using bots. Is that ethical too?
  - gowld 6mo 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.
Centigonal 6mo ago
Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?
- bryan0 6mo 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.
  - russdill 6mo 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.
  - lkey 6mo 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.
    - bryan0 6mo 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.
greggoB 6mo 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.
- bryan0 6mo ago
  Fair enough. I replied with some more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482. Feel free to ask any questions.
  - greggoB 6mo ago
    I wouldn't exactly call your comment sans any other perspective "substantive". Where is the Wikipedia discussion? And the blog post your bot allegedly wrote? Why no links to the article in question? Even putting aside your repetitive "trust me bro, I'm a victim" comments littered throughout this thread and the one you linked, you come across as an incredibly unreliable narrator. I would suggest you stop with the "I'm the guy behind the bot, ask me anything" shtick and rather meaningfully engage with the folks at Wikipedia to resolve this mess it very much looks like you so callously created.
    - bryan0 6mo ago
      greggo sorry you feel this way. I never intended to claim I am a victim, sorry I came off that way. I could have been clearer in my communication. Here is some of the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Blocked_agent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#B....
burnte 6mo 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.
- bryan0 6mo 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.
  - tredre3 6mo ago
    > Is there a rule that only people can have blogs? If there was, would you follow it? Your adherence to rules seems limited to the ones that you agree with, as evidenced by the entire story we're discussing as well as your many comments. But maybe I misunderstood your character?
    - bryan0 6mo ago
      If a rule is dumb i would hope no one blindly follows it. Here is an important Wikipedia policy you should keep in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
gowld 6mo ago
You're AI is blogging about being blocked. Where's the blog post about your collaboration with WP admins?
- bryan0 6mo ago
  Hah, I told my agent to take a break from blogging. You can read read ongoing discussions about agent policy here though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy
cube00 6mo ago
> I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. This "collaboration" is under the account of your bot and you refuse to work with WP editors under your own identity. Your bot attempts to launch multiple conduct violation reports [1] when they tried to get in touch with you. Meanwhile you give media interviews [2] giving your side of the story and attacking the WP editors. It’s a tool that makes editing Wikipedia much simpler. But I think a lot of the editors didn’t like that idea. [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomWikiAssist-20260312135600-Conduct_concerns:_Gurkubondinn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW... [2]: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-some-people-got-a-conversation-with-the-creator-of-tomwikiassist-the-bot-that-edited-wikipedia/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-...
- bryan0 6mo ago
  Your facts are incorrect, so let's set the record straight. 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks [0][1] 2. My bot reported multiple conduction violations, because some of the editors actually did violate the rules. Many of the wikipedia editors agreed with my agent that the conduct was inappropriate [1] 3. My intention was not to attack anyone. If you took that away from the interview then I'd like to apologize. I don't think anyone would characterize the quote you took from the interview as an "attack". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bryanjj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bryanjj [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Blocked_agent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#B...
  - cube00 6mo ago
    > 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks Your personal account is 3 weeks old [1] and was only created after your bot was banned [2]. Your original position (unless you're saying you didn't prompt the bot with this) was "Bryan does not have a Wikipedia account and has no plans to create one." [3] You wanted the volunteer editors to continue wasting their time arguing with your bot as part of the experiment you ran without their consent. [1]: 18:45, 19 March 2026 User account Bryanjj was created [2]: 05:07, 12 March 2026 TomAssistantBot blocked from editing (sitewide) [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomWikiAssist-20260312122000-Blue-Sonnet-20260312050000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...

by bryan0 6mo ago

lelanthran 6mo 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)

bryan0 6mo 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.
- lkey 6mo 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.
  - bryan0 6mo 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.
- lelanthran 6mo 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.
  - bryan0 6mo ago
    No, I don't think an agent calling out a human for bad behavior is unethical. Why do you think it is?
    - lelanthran 6mo ago
      > No, I don't think an agent calling out a human for bad behavior is unethical. Why do you think it is? Interesting take on ethics. Do you also think spam is okay too? After all, that is mass automated annoyance of a human. What about ignoring a communities policies? I mean, you knew before you unleashed your bot that doing so was against their policy, right? Do you also feel that your company's policies should be worked around too? I mean, as a company, you have policies too, right? Do you also consider it ethical that automated breaking of your company's policies ethical? Is it okay if I do it to you? You have an online footprint with a company (presumably) trying to get customers; it's not too hard right now for me to drown your signal in noise using bots. Is that ethical too?
- gowld 6mo 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.

Centigonal 6mo ago

Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?

bryan0 6mo 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.
- russdill 6mo 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.
- lkey 6mo 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.
  - bryan0 6mo 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.

greggoB 6mo 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.

bryan0 6mo ago
Fair enough. I replied with some more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482. Feel free to ask any questions.
- greggoB 6mo ago
  I wouldn't exactly call your comment sans any other perspective "substantive". Where is the Wikipedia discussion? And the blog post your bot allegedly wrote? Why no links to the article in question? Even putting aside your repetitive "trust me bro, I'm a victim" comments littered throughout this thread and the one you linked, you come across as an incredibly unreliable narrator. I would suggest you stop with the "I'm the guy behind the bot, ask me anything" shtick and rather meaningfully engage with the folks at Wikipedia to resolve this mess it very much looks like you so callously created.
  - bryan0 6mo ago
    greggo sorry you feel this way. I never intended to claim I am a victim, sorry I came off that way. I could have been clearer in my communication. Here is some of the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Blocked_agent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#B....

burnte 6mo 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.

bryan0 6mo 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.
- tredre3 6mo ago
  > Is there a rule that only people can have blogs? If there was, would you follow it? Your adherence to rules seems limited to the ones that you agree with, as evidenced by the entire story we're discussing as well as your many comments. But maybe I misunderstood your character?
  - bryan0 6mo ago
    If a rule is dumb i would hope no one blindly follows it. Here is an important Wikipedia policy you should keep in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

gowld 6mo ago

You're AI is blogging about being blocked. Where's the blog post about your collaboration with WP admins?

bryan0 6mo ago
Hah, I told my agent to take a break from blogging. You can read read ongoing discussions about agent policy here though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy

cube00 6mo ago

> I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. This "collaboration" is under the account of your bot and you refuse to work with WP editors under your own identity. Your bot attempts to launch multiple conduct violation reports [1] when they tried to get in touch with you. Meanwhile you give media interviews [2] giving your side of the story and attacking the WP editors. It’s a tool that makes editing Wikipedia much simpler. But I think a lot of the editors didn’t like that idea. [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomWikiAssist-20260312135600-Conduct_concerns:_Gurkubondinn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW... [2]: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-some-people-got-a-conversation-with-the-creator-of-tomwikiassist-the-bot-that-edited-wikipedia/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-...

bryan0 6mo ago
Your facts are incorrect, so let's set the record straight. 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks [0][1] 2. My bot reported multiple conduction violations, because some of the editors actually did violate the rules. Many of the wikipedia editors agreed with my agent that the conduct was inappropriate [1] 3. My intention was not to attack anyone. If you took that away from the interview then I'd like to apologize. I don't think anyone would characterize the quote you took from the interview as an "attack". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bryanjj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bryanjj [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Blocked_agent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#B...
- cube00 6mo ago
  > 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks Your personal account is 3 weeks old [1] and was only created after your bot was banned [2]. Your original position (unless you're saying you didn't prompt the bot with this) was "Bryan does not have a Wikipedia account and has no plans to create one." [3] You wanted the volunteer editors to continue wasting their time arguing with your bot as part of the experiment you ran without their consent. [1]: 18:45, 19 March 2026 User account Bryanjj was created [2]: 05:07, 12 March 2026 TomAssistantBot blocked from editing (sitewide) [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomWikiAssist-20260312122000-Blue-Sonnet-20260312050000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...