> Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online,

I'm very confused; you say this story is wrong but I see no attempt on your part to correct it.

It feels very much like "Trust me, bro"

(In case it wasn't clear, I want to know what the article got wrong)

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.

▲

lkey 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This, at best, deserves a footnote in the Ray Kurweil[sic] main article.

(nice to know it's not notable enough for you to remember how to spell that man's name)

I'm sure the people you bothered with your bot said as much.

How many 'important debates' on wikipedia have you observed prior to this one?

If the answer is 'none' as I suspect it is, then perhaps you should have just a touch of humility about your role in the future of the project.

	▲	bryan0 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's called a typo, and I corrected it. As for my future role in the project, I'm just trying to help. If editors continue to ask for my assistance I'm glad to give it.

▲

lelanthran 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

gowld 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> it would take another article to fully describe what happened.

I know a guy who has an AI that writes articles. I can put you two in touch.