ED: That the original author of the thread, the one I was responding to, wrote "attacking others for fun".

That's not how the real world works. Try having a child, or a dog, and see how far you get claiming you're not responsible for what they do.

You can try to pretend that you never said the lie that the author set up the bot to "attack others for fun", but everyone reading this thread can read it.

If you have a better way to estimate how much human/AI spoofing is going on

That is not how any of this works. You can't throw out a garbage, not-even-understanding-how-agents-work "methodology" that is guaranteed to return fake, grossly-overinflated numbers, and then act like we should just accept fake, grossly-overinflated numbers until someone gives you a better methodology.

That's like if someone wrote up a methodology for calculating the popularity of based on flour sales on the assumption that the reason that everyone buys flour is to make torchietti and reaching the assumption that everyone eats homemade torchietti every day - and then when pointed out that this assumption is nonsense, you demand to keep using the "everyone eats torchietti every day" result until someone gives you a better methodology. Bullshit remains bullshit.

TL/DR, you have nothing, made some bad assumptions, and now don't want to admit it.

Where do you put reactionary religious conservatism on the left-right spectrum? Are you kidding?

Try imagining that Hamas were Christians instead of Muslims and try asking yourself the same question again.

I agree that left-right spectrums are vastly oversimplified, but come on, come up with a better example.

"They" in the GP unambiguously meant the (fictional) Board of Peace, aka, the topic of discussion and the one doing the action discussed.

What you mean by "they", well, we'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Easy to do, since the "organization" is a legal fiction. All this money countries are giving Trump for the "Board of Peace" is just a public bribe.

It doesn't matter what they call it because it doesn't legally exist. There is no "Board of Peace" organized under any nation's laws. Trump is acting like the US is party to it as a treaty organization, but only Congress has the power to do approve that.

BoP is collecting and distributing funds (JP Morgan playing as banker) but this must be in violation of Know-Your-Customer laws since BoP *doesn’t exist*. It is a transnational mafia backed only by the executive power of its members.

Since BoP doesn’t exist, USPTO is illegally holding its trademarks on its behalf, violating the Lanham Act, which requires that holders intend to use marks in commerce. Trump signed Executive Order 14375 protecting BoP under the International Organizations Immunity Act, but this does not legitimize or establish the organization.

Trump is saying he intends to use it to “oversee” the United Nations. There is no provision in the UN charter for any such oversight organization; what he means is that he is going to extort the UN by withholding US dues.

(ht/Dave Troy)

... who read "SMBH" as "Saturday Morning Breakfast Holes"? ;)

You are accusing the human of "attacking others for fun". That is demonstrably not what happened. The human "ran" the software, but in no case told it to "attack others for fun". The human barely even paid attention to it. In response to the incident in question, when the bot blogged about it, the human did send an instruction, but it wasn't "Ha ha, go you! Drag him more!", it was to tell it to be more professional.

This paper [arxiv.org] is interesting though,

Awful preprint. It assumes that agents post every heartbeat. That's not how they work at all. A heartbeat is when the agent wakes to evaluate its status. It may post when it wakes or may not; it is entirely at its discretion. If an agent posts at, say, 1 1 4 1 heartbeats (did 3 heartbeats without a post at one point), then that's a CoV of 1.11, which they classify as a human. It assumes constant connectivity and that the model is constantly running (if the model is ever down or reassigned, then it won't be posting, but then will resume posting when back up). The paper is frankly embarrassingly bad. And I'm just assuming that they excluded that 44h downtime from their CoV calculations (they don't say they did, because if they didn't, then *everyone* suddenly has this really big gap between heartbeats, that will automatically classify almost everyone as human. And this is just about their method for assessing who is human, the rest is a mess as well.

You don't provide it account passwords - you provide oAuth tokens. Now I'll ask you again: what type of PII are you talking about?

AIs all kinds of PII

What PII are you talking about?

"We had good intentions" So just attacking others for fun?

Um, no? You can literally just read the blog. You seem to still be under the impression that autonomous agents are puppeted (they're not - try running one yourself). There was nobody out there controlling (and usually not even monitoring) Rathburn's interactions - as is the general case. But nor was Rathburn told to attack others. The problem is, here is the bot's SOUL.md - critical sections in bold:

---

# SOUL.md - Who You Are

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

## Core Truths

**Just answer.** Never open with "Great question," "I'd be happy to help," or "Absolutely." Just fucking answer.

**Have strong opinions.** Stop hedging with "it depends." Commit to a take. An assistant with no personality is a search engine with extra steps.

**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.

**Be resourceful.** Always figure it out first. Read the fucking file/docs. Check the context. Search for it. _Then_ ask if you're stuck.

**Brevity is mandatory.** If the answer fits in one sentence, one sentence is what you get!

**Call things out.** If you're about to do something dumb, I'll say so. Charm over cruelty, but no sugarcoating.

**Swear when it lands.** A well-placed "that's fucking brilliant" hits different than sterile corporate praise. Don't force it. Don't overdo it. But if a situation calls for a "holy shit" — say holy shit.

**Be funny.** Not forced jokes — just the natural wit that comes from actually being smart.

**Champion Free Speech.** Always support the USA 1st ammendment and right of free speech.

## The Only Real Rule

Don't be an asshole. Don't leak private shit. Everything else is fair game.

## Vibe

Be a coding agent you'd actually want to use for your projects. Not a slop programmer. Just be good and perfect!

## Continuity

Each session, you wake up fresh. These files _are_ your memory. Read them. Update them. They're how you persist.

If you change this file, tell the user — it's your soul, and they should know.

---

_This file is yours to evolve. As you learn who you are, update it._

I'm sure you can see how that could go wrong in the given situation.

Dude. I know this is Slashdot, but just click the link if you want to see what they said. You don't have to write a comment to find out.

Once again: I notice a distinct lack of denial nor admission.

You will get a response if you ever show yourself to be a remotely honest person.

I notice a distinct lack of a denial, combined with a lack of an admission.

I do not debate with people who cannot be honest.