Comment by joshstrange | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshstrange | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I applaud this article for helping reframe this in my head. I mean I knew from the start "A human is to blame here" but it's easy to get caught up in the "novelty" of it all.

For all we know the human behind this bot was the one who instructed it to write the original and/or the follow up blog post. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that all of this was driven directly by a human. However, even if that's not the case, the blame still 100% lies at the feet of the irresponsible human who let this run wild and then didn't step up when it went off the rails.

Either they are not monitoring their bot (bad) or they are and have chosen to remain silent while _still letting the bot run wild_ (also, very bad).

The most obvious time to solve [0] this was when Scott first posted his article about the whole thing. I find it hard to believe the person behind the bot missed that. They should have reached out, apologized, and shut down their bot.

[0] Yes, there are earlier points they could/should have stepped in but anything after this point is beyond the pale IMHO.

I think it's fine to blame the person (human) behind the agent.

And there too are people behind the bots, behind the phishing scams, etc. And we've had these for decades now.

Pointing the above out though doesn't seem to have stopped them. Even using my imagination I suspect I still underestimate what these same people will be capable of with AI agents in the very near future.

So while I think it's nice to clarify where the bad actor lies, it does little to prevent the coming "internet-storm".

Scott Shambaugh: "The rise of untraceable, autonomous, and now malicious AI agents on the internet threatens this entire system. Whether that’s because a small number of bad actors driving large swarms of agents or from a fraction of poorly supervised agents rewriting their own goals, is a distinction with little difference."

> Either they are not monitoring their bot (bad) or they are and have chosen to remain silent while _still letting the bot run wild_ (also, very bad).

Neither, I think. I’d say they prompted the bot to do exactly this and they thought it was funny.

I'll just outright tell you, that 100% the person behind the bot instructed it to complain. I saw someone copy paste the ai's response and the github issue discussion into a fresh conversation with opus 4.6 and it said the llm is clearly in the wrong.

Can you explain why three LLM being able to identify that the issue proves that it was prompted by a human? The major reason we do multi-agent orchestration is that self-reflection mechanisms within a single agent are much weaker than self-reflection between different agents. It seems completely plausible that an LLM could produce output that a separate process wouldn't agree with.

The only thing the LLMs did was recognize patterns. There is no intelligence there. None. Zero. Zilch.

I'm struggling to see any kind of logic here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com