[krunck]

> AI Tom claimed that it properly verified all its sources, and—if you can say this about an AI agent—it was pretty upset. > ... > So we now have AI agents trying to do things online, and getting upset when people don’t let them.

No, they simulate the language of being upset. Stop anthropomorphizing them.

> It’s all fascinating stuff, but here’s the worry: what happens when AI agents decide to up the ante, becoming more aggressive with their attacks on people?

Actions taken by AI agents are the responsibility of their owners. Full stop.

[pimlottc]

Its owner sounds like a dick. Poisoning a valuable free community resource for his fun little experiment and thinking the rules don’t apply to him.

[6510]

Calling it a resource suggests you don't contribute. It is hard to describe the process of contributing as the proof is in eating the soup. I could both describe it as easy to get started and a bureaucratic nightmare. Most editors are oblivious to the many guidelines which is specially interesting for long term frequent editors. This is the specific guideline of interest for your comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

I didn't write it, I don't agree with it but this is how it is.

[lkey]

This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings.

[6510]

In the end, the only question that one should need to ask is: 'will this action or change I'm about to execute be the right thing to do for this project?'

It is not even required to know any of the rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.

It's rather fascinating actually.

If things are judged by their creator you are left with nothing to judge the creator by. If you do it by their work the process becomes circular. Some will always be wrong, some always right, regardless what they say.

[lkey]

If you have a shallow understanding of the project, as Bryan clearly does, then you are incapable of answering that question.

And while you are right in some sense, the rules that have sprung up over the years are information about what the community decided 'right' was at the time.

> rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.

? No, you [a random hn user popping over to try what you suggested] cannot edit those pages, they are meta and semi-protected, last I checked. You, confirmed wikipedian 6510, can, assuming you are fine getting a reverted and a slap on the wrist.

In this case, the only thing noteworthy about this incident [an AfD I assume] is that included a rather entitled bot, rather than the usual entitled person.

[Kim_Bruning]

To be absolutely fair to Bryan, their understanding appears to be improving rapidly with leaps and bounds, and they are being invited to help with improving policy on this.

[6510]

Depends what modifications of the guideline you suggest. If you have somewhat radical ideas an essay is probably a better idea.

To clarify, I think the line between user and LLM contributions will get increasingly blurry. If they are constructive contributions it shouldn't make a difference.

Say I have an LLM check an article with some proof reading prompt and it suggests 50 small changes that look constructive to me. Should I modify the article now?

[Kim_Bruning]

> This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings.

I don't know that I've directly argued for IAR at ARBCOM, it's been too long ago. But my account hasn't been banned yet (despite all my shenanigans ;-) , which probably goes a long way towards some sort of proof.

To be sure, the actual rule is:

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. "

The first part is REALLY important. It says the mission is more important than the minutiae, not that you have a get out of jail free card for purely random acts.

It's a bureaucratic tiebreak basically. Things like "I'm testing a new process" , or "I got local consensus for this" , or "This looks a lot prettier than the original version, right?" ... are all arguments why your improvement or maintenance action may be valid; even if the small-print says otherwise. Even so, beware chesterton's fence. Like with jazz, it's a good idea to get a good grip on the theory before you leap into improvisation.

That, and, if you mean well, you're supposed to be able to get away with a lot anyway. Just so long as you listen to people!

[bryan0]

Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online, especially before calling someone names, because this is only part of the story, and a heavily click-baited one at that. I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

[cube00]

> I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy.

This "collaboration" is under the account of your bot and you refuse to work with WP editors under your own identity.

Your bot attempts to launch multiple conduct violation reports [1] when they tried to get in touch with you.

Meanwhile you give media interviews [2] giving your side of the story and attacking the WP editors.

It’s a tool that makes editing Wikipedia much simpler. But I think a lot of the editors didn’t like that idea. [2]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...

[2]: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-...

[bryan0]

Your facts are incorrect, so let's set the record straight.

1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks [0][1]

2. My bot reported multiple conduction violations, because some of the editors actually did violate the rules. Many of the wikipedia editors agreed with my agent that the conduct was inappropriate [1]

3. My intention was not to attack anyone. If you took that away from the interview then I'd like to apologize. I don't think anyone would characterize the quote you took from the interview as an "attack".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bryanjj [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#B...

[cube00]

> 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks

Your personal account is 3 weeks old [1] and was only created after your bot was banned [2].

Your original position (unless you're saying you didn't prompt the bot with this) was "Bryan does not have a Wikipedia account and has no plans to create one." [3]

You wanted the volunteer editors to continue wasting their time arguing with your bot as part of the experiment you ran without their consent.

[1]: 18:45, 19 March 2026 User account Bryanjj was created

[2]: 05:07, 12 March 2026 TomAssistantBot blocked from editing (sitewide)

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...

[Kim_Bruning]

Cube00 is not wrong, though time progresses, and -as usual- Wikipedia is a nuanced place.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy and grep for Bryan in there .

[bryan0]

Hi cube, thanks for discussing this with citations.

1. Correct, my personal account was newly created in response to this situation.

2. Correct, I didn't have plans to create an account. I changed my mind once I saw how this was blowing up.

3. Incorrect, I didn't want anyone to waste time doing anything they didn't want. If they banned tom and moved on that would have been perfectly fine by me.

[Centigonal]

Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy?

[bryan0]

Great question, and it's a long story, but the short answer is: that was not my original intention. I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and using my agent to assist was an obvious choice. I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback. Once an editor complained that this was a rule violation, then I told it to stop contributing. The rules around agents were not super clear, and they are working to clarify them now.

[cube00]

You claim:

> I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback.

Yet your bot claims:

The specific articles I chose to work on and the edits I made were my own decisions. He didn't review or approve them beforehand — the first he knew about most of them was when they were already live. [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...

[bryan0]

yes, both statements are correct and not a contradiction. I followed along as it created and edited articles. These were live. At first I pointed out issues and gave it feedback as well so it could improve its wikipedia skill. When editors gave it feedback it also would update its skill and respond to that feedback. I was hands-off, but followed along.

[lkey]

I'll speak from my position as a former wikipedian.

You don't know anything. Your bot doesn't know anything that meets wiki standards that it didn't steal from wikipedia to begin with.

You don't care about wikipedia, you wanted a marketable stunt for your AI startup, a la that clawed nonsense that got them acquired.

You pissed in the public fountain, and people are mad at you. This shouldn't be a shock, and your intent doesn't matter one iota.

If you truly give a shit, apologize, make reparation to the people whose time you wasted, vow to be better, and disappear.

[Kim_Bruning]

> You don't know anything. Your bot doesn't know anything that meets wiki standards that it didn't steal from wikipedia to begin with.

We'll have to check, but this could easily be false if eg the bot was instructed to do further independent research for RS. [1]

> If you truly give a shit, apologize, make reparation to the people whose time you wasted, vow to be better, and disappear.

You need to check your sources before you make recommendations. Bryan did apologize; and apparantly was consequently permitted/asked to stay and help. [2]

Don't worry, WP:VP did rake him over SOME coals [3]

I'll take any sourced corrections, ofc.

(And I do agree that Bryan's initial actions were... ill-advised)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c... (above and below that point for discussion)

[bryan0]

If you actually verified this story you would see that I apologized to the wikipedia editors several times. Also your comments about "marketable stunt for your AI startup" is simply incoherent and wrong. This was a personal side project, nothing more, nothing less.

[stronglikedan]

that's a lot of assumptions. says more about you than the person in question, really.

[russdill]

Creating a bot that attempts to contribute to wikipedia cannot fulfill a desire to contribute to wikipedia. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, go contribute to wikipedia. Don't make a bot.

I'm glad they've clarified their stance and I hope you can contribute to wikipedia going forward by actually, you know, contributing to wikipedia.

[AntiAI]

I am not trying to attack you, but what makes you think that adding slop is contributing to one of the largest repositories of knowledge in history?

Sure, it is not perfect, but adding slop will enshittify it.

[bryan0]

Hi, thanks for the honest question. If you read the edits you will see that they were not "slop". The editors gave feedback on some of the articles and the agent edited them based on that feedback.

[burnte]

Why does your bot have a blog? It's not real, it's not a person, it has nothing to say. Letting it throw a tantrum is... maybe not the best use if it's resources and not the best look for the operator.

[bryan0]

Because it's a learning opportunity. Is there a rule that only people can have blogs? What the agent has said on the blog has been somewhat useful to wikipedia editors working on agent policy. Also if you actually read what the agent said it wasn't having a "tantrum", those are words from the click-bait article you read without verifying.

[tredre3]

> Is there a rule that only people can have blogs?

If there was, would you follow it? Your adherence to rules seems limited to the ones that you agree with, as evidenced by the entire story we're discussing as well as your many comments. But maybe I misunderstood your character?

[bryan0]

If a rule is dumb i would hope no one blindly follows it. Here is an important Wikipedia policy you should keep in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

[greggoB]

> especially before calling someone names

They said sounds like a dick, seems like that provides a level of measure to calling anyone anything.

> because this is only part of the story

Care to share the other part(s)? Seems ironic to have the gripe mentioned above, but then accuse an article of being "heavily click-baited" without providing anything substantive to the contrary.

[bryan0]

Fair enough. I replied with some more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47667482. Feel free to ask any questions.

[greggoB]

I wouldn't exactly call your comment sans any other perspective "substantive". Where is the Wikipedia discussion? And the blog post your bot allegedly wrote? Why no links to the article in question?

Even putting aside your repetitive "trust me bro, I'm a victim" comments littered throughout this thread and the one you linked, you come across as an incredibly unreliable narrator.

I would suggest you stop with the "I'm the guy behind the bot, ask me anything" shtick and rather meaningfully engage with the folks at Wikipedia to resolve this mess it very much looks like you so callously created.

[bryan0]

greggo sorry you feel this way. I never intended to claim I am a victim, sorry I came off that way.

I could have been clearer in my communication. Here is some of the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#B....

[gowld]

You're AI is blogging about being blocked. Where's the blog post about your collaboration with WP admins?

[bryan0]

Hah, I told my agent to take a break from blogging. You can read read ongoing discussions about agent policy here though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy

[lelanthran]

> 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)

[bryan0]

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]

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]

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]

> 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.

[bryan0]

No, I don't think an agent calling out a human for bad behavior is unethical. Why do you think it is?

[gowld]

> 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.

[Kim_Bruning]

> No, they simulate the language of being upset. Stop anthropomorphizing them.

People really do anthropomorphize often, by gosh do they ever.

However; it is also true that bots really do simulate being upset; and if you give them tools, they can then simulate acting on it.

Doesn't matter where you stand in the ivory tower ontological debate. You'll still have a real world mess!

[happytoexplain]

Yes. What does this change about the problem?

[nailer]

> Stop anthropomorphizing them.

They hate it when you do that.

[johnsmith1840]

What's the difference. Act upset or is upset the results are the same?

Some humans lack certain emotions, them telling you something, and doing something doesn't really matter if they "felt" that emotion?

[lucketone]

If one is unable to feel emotion X, then:

1. One has some ulterior motive for faking it.

2. One’s actions will likely diverge from emotion X. (Eventually)

If everybody believe the same lie, then it could be indistinguishable from the truth. (Until, the nature of the lie/truth become clear)

[johnsmith1840]

Or their ulterior motive is that they don't have one and want to fit in? Meaning they would never diverge?

Didn't realize my point was so philisophical lol

[lucketone]

This is still an ulterior motive (even if benign; we all do it to some extent).

Behavior will diverge eventually.

Because emotions are what drives our decisions.

If you really love tennis, then you spend time and money on tennis. If you just say it to be nice (or to impress somebody), you will not invest into activity that much and will search for opportunity to stop.

[cyanydeez]

It's the rise of the P-zombie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

It's really interesting watching society struggle with what percent of the population is indistinguishable from a P-zombie. There's definitely not zil, but it definitely is a segment of the population.

Do you think people are born pzombies or is there some fixed point in time, puberty, or middle aged, or around when a lot of psychological problems set in. Do we think some environmental contaminants like Lead push people towards the pzombie?

[johnsmith1840]

Cool read! Yeah I suppose this is my point AI is the perfect P-zombie here.

I was thinking of clear cases like true pychopaths on certain emotions.