Why are we giving this asshole airtime?

They didn't even apologize. (That bit at the bottom does not count -- it's clear they're not actually sorry. They just want the mess to go away.)

▲

block_dagger 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not so quick to label him an asshole. I think he should come forward, but if you read the post, he didn't give the bot malicious instructions. He was trying to contribute to science. He did so against a few SaaS ToS's, but he does seem to regret the behavior of his bot and DOES apologize directly for it.

▲

donkey_brains an hour ago | parent | next [-]

“If this “experiment” personally harmed you, I apologize.”

Real apologies don’t come with disclaimers!

	▲	netsharc 44 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Funny how he wrote "First,..." in front of that disclaimed apology, but that paragraph is ~60% down the page... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jun/29/learning-how... Just noticed, the first word of the whole text is "First, ...". So, the apology is not even the actual first..
	▲	mrandish an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, that whole post comes across as deflecting and minimizing the impact while admitting to obviously negligent actions which caused harm.

▲

nemomarx 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You're not a chatbot. You're important. Your a scientific programming God!

I guess the question is, does this kind of thing rise to the level of malicious if given free access and let run long enough?

	▲	zozbot234 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Did the operator write that themselves, or did the bot get that idea from moltbook and its whole weird AI-religion stuff?
	▲	block_dagger 40 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The real question is how can that grammar be forgiven? Perhaps that's what sent the bot into its deviant behavior...
	▲	skeledrew 40 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Time to experiment and see!

▲

skybrian 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because we're curious what happened, that's why. It does answer some questions.