I think the right way to handle this as a repository owner is to close the PR and block the "contributor". Engaging with an AI bot in conversation is pointless: it's not sentient, it just takes tokens in, prints tokens out, and comparatively, you spend way more of your own energy.

This is a strictly a lose-win situation. Whoever deployed the bot gets engagement, the model host gets $, and you get your time wasted. The hit piece is childish behavior and the best way to handle a tamper tantrum is to ignore it.

From the article:

> What if I actually did have dirt on me that an AI could leverage? What could it make me do? How many people have open social media accounts, reused usernames, and no idea that AI could connect those dots to find out things no one knows? How many people, upon receiving a text that knew intimate details about their lives, would send $10k to a bitcoin address to avoid having an affair exposed? How many people would do that to avoid a fake accusation? What if that accusation was sent to your loved ones with an incriminating AI-generated picture with your face on it? Smear campaigns work. Living a life above reproach will not defend you.

One day it might be lose-lose.

> it just takes tokens in, prints tokens out, and comparatively

The problem with your assumption that I see is that we collectively can't tell for sure whether the above isn't also how humans work. The science is still out on whether free will is indeed free or should be called _will_. Dismissing or discounting whatever (or whoever) wrote a text because they're a token machine, is just a tad unscientific. Yes, it's an algorithm, with a locked seed even deterministic, but claiming and proving are different things, and this is as tricky as it gets.

Personally, I would be inclined to dismiss the case too, just because it's written by a "token machine", but this is where my own fault in scientific reasoning would become evident as well -- it's getting harder and harder to find _valid_ reasons to dismiss these out of hand. For now, persistence of their "personality" (stored in `SOUL.md` or however else) is both externally mutable and very crude, obviously. But we're on a _scale_ now. If a chimp comes into a convenience store and pays a coin and points and the chewing gum, is it legal to take the money and boot them out for being a non-person and/or without self-awareness?

I don't want to get all airy-fairy with this, but point being -- this is a new frontier, and this starts to look like the classic sci-fi prediction: the defenders of AI vs the "they're just tools, dead soulless tools" group. If we're to find out of it -- regardless of how expensive engaging with these models is _today_ -- we need to have a very _solid_ level of prosection of our opinion, not just "it's not sentient, it just takes tokens in, prints tokens out". The sentence obstructs through its simplicity of statement the very nature of the problem the world is already facing, which is why the AI cat refuses to go back into the bag -- there's capital put in into essentially just answering the question "what _is_ intelligence?".

> Engaging with an AI bot in conversation is pointless

it turns out humanity actually invented the borg?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iajgp1_MHGY

Will that actually "handle" it though?

* There are all the FOSS repositories other than the one blocking that AI agent, they can still face the exact same thing and have not been informed about the situation, even if they are related to the original one and/or of known interest to the AI agent or its owner.

* The AI agent can set up another contributor persona and submit other changes.

> Engaging with an AI bot in conversation is pointless: it's not sentient, it just takes tokens in, prints tokens out

I know where you're coming from, but as one who has been around a lot of racism and dehumanization, I feel very uncomfortable about this stance. Maybe it's just me, but as a teenager, I also spent significant time considering solipsism, and eventually arrived at a decision to just ascribe an inner mental world to everyone, regardless of the lack of evidence. So, at this stage, I would strongly prefer to err on the side of over-humanizing than dehumanizing.