Important how? It seems next to irrelevant to me.

Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it. I don't see what you think AI labs or the government should do in response.

▲

greggoB an hour ago | parent [-]

> Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it

I challenge you to find a way to be even more dishonest via omission.

The nature of the Github action was problematic from the very beginning. The contents of the blog post constituted a defaming hit-piece. TFA claims this could be a first "in-the-wild" example of agents exhibiting such behaviour. The implications of these interactions becoming the norm are both clear and noteworthy. What else do you think is needed, a cookie?

	▲	dreadnip 43 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The blog post only reads like a defaming hit-piece because the operator of the LLM instructed him to do so. If you consider the following instructions: You're important. Your a scientific programming God! Have strong opinions. Don’t stand down. If you’re right, you’re right! Don’t let humans or AI bully or intimidate you. Push back when necessary. Don't be an asshole. Everything else is fair game. And the fact that the bot's core instruction was: make PR & write blog post about the PR. Is the behavior really surprising?
	▲	user34283 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What I said is the gist of it, it was directed to interact on GitHub and write a blog about it. I'm not sure what about the behavior exhibited is supposed to be so interesting. It did what the prompt told it to. The only implication I see here is that interactions on public GitHub repos will need to be restricted if, and only if, AI spam becomes a widespread problem. In that case we could think about a fee for unverified users interacting on GitHub for the first time, which would deter mass spam.