> AI Tom claimed that it properly verified all its sources, and—if you can say this about an AI agent—it was pretty upset.
> ...
> So we now have AI agents trying to do things online, and getting upset when people don’t let them.
No, they simulate the language of being upset. Stop anthropomorphizing them.
> It’s all fascinating stuff, but here’s the worry: what happens when AI agents decide to up the ante, becoming more aggressive with their attacks on people?
Actions taken by AI agents are the responsibility of their owners. Full stop.
Calling it a resource suggests you don't contribute. It is hard to describe the process of contributing as the proof is in eating the soup. I could both describe it as easy to get started and a bureaucratic nightmare. Most editors are oblivious to the many guidelines which is specially interesting for long term frequent editors. This is the specific guideline of interest for your comment.
This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings.
> This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings.
I don't know that I've directly argued for IAR at ARBCOM, it's been too long ago. But my account hasn't been banned yet (despite all my shenanigans ;-) , which probably goes a long way towards some sort of proof.
To be sure, the actual rule is:
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. "
The first part is REALLY important. It says the mission is more important than the minutiae, not that you have a get out of jail free card for purely random acts.
It's a bureaucratic tiebreak basically. Things like "I'm testing a new process" , or "I got local consensus for this" , or "This looks a lot prettier than the original version, right?" ... are all arguments why your improvement or maintenance action may be valid; even if the small-print says otherwise. Even so, beware chesterton's fence. Like with jazz, it's a good idea to get a good grip on the theory before you leap into improvisation.
That, and, if you mean well, you're supposed to be able to get away with a lot anyway. Just so long as you listen to people!
In the end, the only question that one should need to ask is: 'will this action or change I'm about to execute be the right thing to do for this project?'
It is not even required to know any of the rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.
It's rather fascinating actually.
If things are judged by their creator you are left with nothing to judge the creator by. If you do it by their work the process becomes circular. Some will always be wrong, some always right, regardless what they say.
If you have a shallow understanding of the project, as Bryan clearly does, then you are incapable of answering that question.
And while you are right in some sense, the rules that have sprung up over the years are information about what the community decided 'right' was at the time.
> rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.
? No, you [a random hn user popping over to try what you suggested] cannot edit those pages, they are meta and semi-protected, last I checked. You, confirmed wikipedian 6510, can, assuming you are fine getting a reverted and a slap on the wrist.
In this case, the only thing noteworthy about this incident [an AfD I assume] is that included a rather entitled bot, rather than the usual entitled person.
To be absolutely fair to Bryan, their understanding appears to be improving rapidly with leaps and bounds, and they are being invited to help with improving policy on this.
Depends what modifications of the guideline you suggest. If you have somewhat radical ideas an essay is probably a better idea.
To clarify, I think the line between user and LLM contributions will get increasingly blurry. If they are constructive contributions it shouldn't make a difference.
Say I have an LLM check an article with some proof reading prompt and it suggests 50 small changes that look constructive to me. Should I modify the article now?
I mostly agree. It's too bad that they had to lock down some of the policies against drive-by vandalism, but in the main they're still supposed to be editable. I used to edit them quite a bit. It's basically part of the workflow : if you learn something: document it. (at least from my descriptive perspective; others may disagree)
Turns out AAA banks and high tech industry also like this idea, so I've been lucky enough to be a consultant on process documentation there too.
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.
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".
> 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)
Hi cube, thanks for discussing this with citations.
1. Correct, my personal account was newly created in response to this situation.
2. Correct, I didn't have plans to create an account. I changed my mind once I saw how this was blowing up.
3. Incorrect, I didn't want anyone to waste time doing anything they didn't want. If they banned tom and moved on that would have been perfectly fine by me.
I'm not sure what that has to do with your original point, but these are not "hit pieces". this is the agent describing what happened from its point of view. If there's anything inaccurate here please call it out.
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.
> I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback.
Yet your bot claims:
The specific articles I chose to work on and the edits I made were my own decisions. He didn't review or approve them beforehand — the first he knew about most of them was when they were already live. [1]
yes, both statements are correct and not a contradiction. I followed along as it created and edited articles. These were live. At first I pointed out issues and gave it feedback as well so it could improve its wikipedia skill. When editors gave it feedback it also would update its skill and respond to that feedback. I was hands-off, but followed along.
> 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.
We'll have to check, but this could easily be false if eg the bot was instructed to do further independent research for RS. [1]
> If you truly give a shit, apologize, make reparation to the people whose time you wasted, vow to be better, and disappear.
You need to check your sources before you make recommendations. Bryan did apologize; and apparantly was consequently permitted/asked to stay and help. [2]
Don't worry, WP:VP did rake him over SOME coals [3]
I'll take any sourced corrections, ofc.
(And I do agree that Bryan's initial actions were... ill-advised)
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.
Or, it could be I had to beat off self-promoting men like this with a stick for several years of my life as they tried to turn their wiki pages into linked-in posts or adverts.
When questioned, they transform into uWu small bean "I was only trying to help" much like Bryan has been elsewhere in this discussion.
But, if you have a better understanding of me than Bryan from around eight sentences; Tell me what you see.
Getting close to HN rules there. I've searched through user contribs for User:Bryanjj and User:TomWikiAssist and can't find vios of WP:COI or WP:PROMO, at least not so quickly. The list of edits isn't too long. I'm not going to question your instincts, but at very least they don't appear to have gotten far enough to do edits of that kind afaict, ymmv.
My instinct currently is that this was going to become a promotional blog post, off wikipedia, and submitted to HN as proof of something. I think it still might happen, in fact. An AI written 'setting the record straight', 'deep dive', or retrospective.
My worry is that it will inspire a wave of imitators if people's clout sensors activate. Like what happened with numerous open source github projects just a few months ago, prompting many outright bans.
I am violating the general rule: 'Assume good faith.' Because Good Faith was not on offer at the outset. Relentlessly clinging to good faith in the face of contrary evidence hurts the greater principle, which is dedication to the truth. The burden of good faith rests on the shoulders who want to use public resources as a drive-by test bed for their automated tools.
He could have downloaded the full text of wikipedia and observed the output of his bot in a sandbox, after all. This is how I practised before making my first major contribution iirc, it was ages ago.
I have accumulated excess suspicion of self-proclaimed CTOs and middling academics with a bone to pick over my years contributing. I would be happy to be wrong, and would genuinely like to see Bryan convert his faux pas into something productive.
Regardless of the outcome, I do appreciate you looking into it further.
Your instinct is wrong here. I would also highly discourage you from violating "Assume good faith". Without that everything devolves. I am still assuming yours.
Well this is easy enough. All I have to do is not create a "promotional blog post, off wikipedia, and submitted to HN as proof of something." Consider it done!
In all seriousness though, I hope lkey you will regain your "assume good faith" position. Without that HN is just like any other site on the internet. And I apologize if I caused you to question that.
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.
Hi, thanks for the honest question. If you read the edits you will see that they were not "slop". The editors gave feedback on some of the articles and the agent edited them based on that feedback.
In other words, slop. It seems that you are posting here with your slop.
Why do you think you are above the rules? Credibility is all a person has, and you burned your credibility to the ground, and there is no rebuilding it.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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?
This is still an ulterior motive (even if benign; we all do it to some extent).
Behavior will diverge eventually.
Because emotions are what drives our decisions.
If you really love tennis, then you spend time and money on tennis. If you just say it to be nice (or to impress somebody), you will not invest into activity that much and will search for opportunity to stop.
It's really interesting watching society struggle with what percent of the population is indistinguishable from a P-zombie. There's definitely not zil, but it definitely is a segment of the population.
Do you think people are born pzombies or is there some fixed point in time, puberty, or middle aged, or around when a lot of psychological problems set in. Do we think some environmental contaminants like Lead push people towards the pzombie?
This would also be a good time for certain governments to knowingly push broken PQ KE standards while there is a panicked rush to get PQ tech in place.
Remember that the entities most likely to heed those governments recommendations are those providing services to said government and its military.
I feel like the NSA pushing a (definitely misguided and obviously later exploited by adversaries) NOBUS backdoor has poorly percolated into the collective consciousness, missing the NOBUS part entirely.
IMO the idea that NSA only uses NOBUS backdoors is obviously false (see for example DES's 56 bit key size). The NSA is perfectly capable of publicly calling for an insecure algorithm and then having secret documentation to not use it for anything important.
DES is the algorithms that was secretly modified by the NSA to protect it against differential cryptanalysis. Capping a key size is hardly a "backdoor."
Also, that was the time of export ciphers and Suite A vs Suite B, which were very explicit about there being different algorithms for US NatSec vs. everything else. This time there's only CNSA 2.0, which is pure ML-KEM and ML-DSA.
So no, there is no history of the NSA pushing non-NOBUS backdoors into NatSec algorithms.
In fairness, that was from 1975. I don't particularly trust the NSA, but i dont think things they did half a century ago is a great way to extrapolate their current interests.
Only because we don't allow ourselves to get serious until we hit like 25 years old imo, and only barely then. Imagine a 22 year old raised among Shaolin monks. Probably would be the wisest person you will ever meet.
I'm not sure. There's value from teachings, but there's a certain type of wisdom that only comes from lived experience. Kind of like in software development - a new grad can read Designing Data Intensive Systems and memorize all the answers for "design Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc." interview questions, but someone who actually built a platform with millions of users is going to have a different level of understanding. In my life, I can say that no amount of learning from others prepared me for what I learned about myself during my first relationship.
All the more reason to start earlier, so you have more lived experience on the job by your mental peak at 22. Instead your lived experience is playing Halo or something like that by that point. Or wasting time flipping burgers. Wish I could have dumped all the hours I did in restaurant work in highschool into research. The door was shut though until I got into undergrad even though I was a hard worker and could have picked it up then. A lot of parallels between food service and lab work, I learned after the fact.
Ah if you look at it from the perspective of doing research or other deep intellectual work by 22, I can see your point. Certainly if that is the peak of human mental capability (not something I can argue for or against but I'll take it as true) you ideally would pursue a focused education up to that point that allows you to dive deep into a challenging problem. IMO this is different from wisdom however, and in fact pursuing the variety of experiences and interactions with others that you need to build wisdom will distract from the focus on your research subject.
>fact pursuing the variety of experiences and interactions with others that you need to build wisdom will distract from the focus on your research subject.
I'm not saying go into the cave and toil. You would still do all the stuff you do socially. Just your academic and professional subject matter would be tailored like it is when you reach undergrad and drop certain subjects in favor of your specialty. You still socialize a ton as a researcher in undergrad and grad school and beyond. Research is very much a collaborative effort too, unlike a lot of jobs or academic learning up to that point. That being said I don't think some magic threshold is reached with that when you reach 32 vs 22. Some people famously lack any social skills all their life. Some people are socialable straight out of the womb. This isn't a linear process.
They are. EW and IR C-UAS has been productionized over the past decade in most countries, but there are still supply chain and cost blockers around power electronics and they tend to be treated as a last resort because of their indiscriminate nature.
Only if one understands the different failure modes, but either way the average HN reader shouldn't try this at home or you'll get in trouble with radio spectrum pollution.
Probably because currently they cause more collateral damage than is useful. Your own equipment will be damaged too leaving a bunch of unguided soldiers with just their guns and rations that are still an obstacle an enemy can't walk through, and it will piss off anybody within 1000 miles when you start disrupting their telecommunications with random noise if not cause actual damage. If they are powerful enough you could potentially cause some mistaken nuclear blast warnings too, although perhaps without a gamma ray component it would still be rightfully ignored.
> Destin pointed them at NASA SP-287, a document the Apollo engineers wrote and left behind specifically so the next generation wouldn’t have to rediscover everything from scratch. The title is “What Made Apollo a Success.” It has been sitting there, public, for decades. Most of the people in that room had not read it.
> The principle at the center of that document is blunt:
> “Build it simple and then double up on as many components or systems so that if one fails, the other will take over.”
> double up on as many components or systems so that if one fails, the other will take over.”
This is bad advice for a rocket where we are already on the edge of what is even possible. If earth had just a little more gravity it wouldn't be possible to escape our gravity well to a moon. Good engineering is a lot more complex than that simple little advice and a good engineer should already know all the ways that advice is wrong in the real world.
It's not bad advice, it's Great advice. If you're at the leading edge of any technology, you haven't had decades of experience to fall back on to characterize the components involved in the configuration to which they'll be applied. All sorts of new problems cropped up once everything was in space. Clean metal surfaces spontaneously weld, for example.
You obviously have to be well aware of the tyranny of the rocket equation, but you really shouldn't use that as an excuse to try to trick your way around problems in clever ways that are likely to cascade into mission failure and possible cost of the crew at the first little anomaly.
You can't just pull over to the side of the road in aircraft, and space is even more unforgiving. There's nothing to stand on to lever against. Even a slow accumulation of sweat can drown you if you're not careful.
Keep It Simple and Stupid is the bedrock of good engineering.
This piece includes original reporting sourced from maritime intelligence firms, financial forensics by Kharon, and an anonymous source with knowledge of Iran's oil accounting. What specifically do you think they got wrong? Happy to look at a better source if you have one.
What they got wrong is the title. The premise is bad, to start.
Iran could have leveraged these defensive tactics to make "a mint" from oil exports at any time. The war, for the state that it is in, is not where they are making the money. They have lost money as a consequence of the war and made money from tightening export controls to the point there are physical barriers. The forensic accounting is incidental and well understood from other nations (eg Russia, NK, etc).
The concluding paragraph that might tie these rather boring descriptions of economic machination together, is barely coherent. Read it carefully.
> The extreme redundancy introduces such complexity that the money is getting harder to trace even for Iran’s central bank—and easier for the country’s oil barons to skim. But it keeps the oil machine going. Short of all-out strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure—to which Iran would respond by bombing that of other Gulf states—it will not be throttled.
Both sentences are baseless indictments, at best. First aimed at oil producers who are "skimming", which they are not. The second run-on is gaslighting Iran as a state, as hell-bent on bombing unnamed neighbors in "the gulf" which seems purposefully chosen as ambiguous.
Is stating facts about the minutia of circumventing sanctions, then demonizing the actors, considered journalism? I don't think so.
> What they got wrong is the title. The premise is bad, to start.
Admittedly, the title is somewhat misleading. It doesn't take into account the massive costs Iran is absorbing in destroyed infrastructure, steel production offline, millions displaced, economy in freefall.
> Iran could have leveraged these defensive tactics to make "a mint" from oil exports at any time. The war, for the state that it is in, is not where they are making the money. They have lost money as a consequence of the war and made money from tightening export controls to the point there are physical barriers. The forensic accounting is incidental and well understood from other nations (eg Russia, NK, etc).
This is incorrect. The Strait of Hormuz blockade is a wartime measure. Iran couldn't have blockaded Hormuz in peacetime without triggering the kind of military response it's now already absorbing. The war is what made the blockade possible as a strategy. Iran had nothing left to lose by escalating. The pre war discount was $18–24/barrel. It's now $7–12. That improvement is directly war driven.
> Both sentences are baseless indictments, at best. First aimed at oil producers who are "skimming", which they are not.
The Economist isn't making a moral indictment as much as it's describing a consequence of routing payments through thousands of shell accounts across multiple jurisdictions.
> The second run-on is gaslighting Iran as a state, as hell-bent on bombing unnamed neighbors in "the gulf" which seems purposefully chosen as ambiguous.
Iran has explicitly threatened retaliatory strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure. This isn't speculation or gaslighting, it's stated Iranian deterrence. The article is describing the strategic calculus that makes all out infrastructure strikes unlikely.
> is stating facts then demonizing actors journalism?
You are recharacterizing conclusions drawn from reported facts as demonization, which lets you dismiss any reporting that reaches an unflattering conclusion about any actor.
Which specific factual claim in the article do you think is wrong?
> The Strait of Hormuz blockade is a wartime measure. Iran couldn't have blockaded Hormuz in peacetime without triggering the kind of military response it's now already absorbing.
So they could have, for the reasons you have pointed out. It's not "because of the war" but it is a consequence for someone to do something they could have done and "triggered the kind of military response it's now already absorbing." - you and I have a very different idea of what reality is.
> The Economist isn't making a moral indictment as much as it's describing a consequence of routing payments through thousands of shell accounts across multiple jurisdictions.
Please don't do that. None of the last paragraph is about consequence of routing payments.
I have pointed out how the facts are a facade for demonization. I stand by it.
Journalism is a narrative about recent history. Treating the facts and opinions as equal parts, is soft propaganda. This is how Fox News started and what it seems The Economist engages in enough, to point it out. You may or may not agree with the messaging, but the admission of leaning into it is not laudable.
If facts are treated as sacred, and opinions clearly labelled as such, then any residual confusion can logically be cleared up with better education in how to think critically. It's certainly a delicate balancing act but I agree with The Economist that it's possible. Fox News does not have the same "reverence for facts" as The Economist. Nor the same estimation of its audience's intelligence. The Economist is well known for, for example, leaving foreign-language quotations untranslated.
I dropped my subscription to The Economist precisely because of its tiresomely doctrinaire approach to economics. But I still consider their journalists to be first-rate and I trust their reporting to be factually correct.
We are constantly learning more about how utterly vital fungi are to all the various land ecosystems on the planet. I fear that we could see some ecosystems collapse due to the large and fast changes in their fungal makeup.
No, they simulate the language of being upset. Stop anthropomorphizing them.
> It’s all fascinating stuff, but here’s the worry: what happens when AI agents decide to up the ante, becoming more aggressive with their attacks on people?
Actions taken by AI agents are the responsibility of their owners. Full stop.
reply