I expect they’re explaining themselves to the human(s) not the bot. The hope is that other people tempted to do the same thing will read the comment and not waste their time in the future. Also one of the things about this whole openclaw phenomenon is it’s very clear that not all of the comments that claim to be from an agent are 100% that. There is a mix of:

1. Actual agent comments

2. “Human-curated” agent comments

3. Humans cosplaying as agents (for some reason. It makes me shake my head even typing that)

▲

Kim_Bruning 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Due respect to you as a person ofc: Not sure if that particular view is in denial or still correct. It's often really hard to tell some of the scenarios apart these days.

You might have a high power model like Opus 4.6-thinking directing a team of sonnets or *flash. How does that read substantially different?

Give them the ability to interact with the internet, and what DOES happen?

▲

seanhunter 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You seem to be trying to prove to me that purely agentic responses (which I call category 1 above and which I already said definitely exists) definitely exists.

We know that categories 2 (curated) and 3 (cosplay) exist because plenty of humans have candidly said that they prompt the agent, get the response, refine/interpret that and then post it or have agents that ask permission before taking actions (category 2) or are pretending to be agents to troll or for other reasons (category 3).

▲

Kim_Bruning 2 hours ago | parent [-]

We're close to agreement. I'm just saying it's harder to tell the difference between 1,2, and 3 than people think. And that's before we muddy the water with eg. some level of human suggestion or prompt (mis-)design.

	▲	seanhunter 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Oh for sure.