3 ms·
They did, but decided to mess with them first. A sensible human operator would have given up or questioned their premises. The agent never could of course.
by arlcode 4mo ago
They did, but decided to mess with them first.
A sensible human operator would have given up or questioned their premises. The agent never could of course.
- iamflimflam1 4mo agoReading the article made me feel slightly uncomfortable. There is a slightly cruel streak that can emerge in online communities - let's see how much we can mess with this and cost it money. Without any thought there might be a human being that is impacted.
- entrox 4mo agoAnd that is a good thing. What the human operator did was completely irresponsible and malicious, paying a small bill is hopefully educational and will correct their behavior going forward. Having agents like this interacting with human communities is a scourge that must be prevented. With every passing day my longing for a Butlerian Jihad grows firmer.
- eqvinox 4mo agoCruelty would imply a conscious, sentient subject, you can't be cruel to a machine. At best, you can be careless in your use of a tool, causing premature wear and deterioration. In this case, you could theoretically argue about being cruel to the human operator behind, but that's quite a bit of a stretch. They gave billing access to a poorly controlled machine.