@anderseknert Ah, a human error. I missed it in the list. It was never delisted even. And I already went and checked github.com/crabby-rathbun/mjrathbun-website/tree/main

Which btw, depending on anyone’s approach to interacting with wasteful agents, is likely open to issues and PRs

@anderseknert Although this one didn’t get an answer. github.com/crabby-rathbun/mjrathbun-website/issues/1

Juhis Patrik Svensson Anders Eknert That is part of what was the and the point, but I think it could have been done better.

Simply flatly refusing it as a freedom-harming tool and then providing an explanation for readers would’ve been better.

@anderseknert I guarantee this is not true and either a human wrote the blog post or heavily prompted the agent to do it. Moltboook proved it's all bullshit.

@some @anderseknert without retracting the original, terribly written post or even linking to the retraction.

I don't think this is a llm, I think this is the human behind it.

RE: https://chaosfem.tw/@theogrin/116055944212064068

@evrial @anderseknert
Would that be an appropriate reply:

@troed @anderseknert and then the question is whether you believe that or whether you think it is PR by the company.

I think it's pr.

@anderseknert the crazy thing is that people are mentioning it like it's a real person...

@lain @anderseknert the rejection doesn't seem too crazy? what are you saying doesn't seem too crazy?

Link to it, FTR
https://web.archive.org/web/20260211225255/https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/posts/2026-02-11-gatekeeping-in-open-source-the-scott-shambaugh-story.html

Do wonder if it did it totally automatically, or someone did say "ok now write a blogpost about that", or if it was automatical "when you are denied, write a blogpost demanding a merge'.

Suppose obviously, when it encounters the argument that humans have to learn from simpler pull requests, it doesn't look at the question. Like LLMs do the opposite of learning from it, when they ingest their own output, it makes them worse..

@anderseknert

Oh my god the losers commenting on that PR in support of the bot.

Fucking infuriating

@lispi314 @patriksvensson @anderseknert Isn't that what happened? They closed it with a short comment on their LLM policy and then later participated in the discussion.

@hamatti @patriksvensson @anderseknert They indulged the pretense of personality from the spam tool too much.

@hugoestr @anderseknert @sszuecs what’s the issue with hosting your blog on GitHub?

@anderseknert tbqh, I’ve just had an idea. Maybe we could prompt the bot into always seeking commit review first from a bunch of internet humans who would ask to be mentioned, who would actually get prompted into good polemics and learn contributing? When these commits would reach real PRs, they would be speaking with the maintainers too as a human face? And then real contributors could fish out the nicer insightful ones from this pool and ask them to do real change reviews

Although plausible scenario that this would become not much more than a reality show only with this bunch participating willingly, with spectators getting angry at the AI agent

@anderseknert This is just step 1 of automated coercion & extortion.

First thing I thought of when LLMs launched was oh great, just wait for version 2.0 of the "we hacked your webcam" threat spam.

@rzeta0 @patriksvensson @anderseknert i'm also wondering what on that "AI"-agents website made it clear that there is no human involved. Scott mentioned that (and at least now that's obvious), but I wouldn't have known that from just looking at the website (and it doesn't seem like something about that was removed)
Maybe I'm just missing something very obvious. But I really dislike the idea of LLMs giving the impression of being a real person

@syntaxseed you’ll know it when you see a ransom demand printed over several pages of markdown, with bullet points splattered everywhere.

@anderseknert God, that blog is miserable to read. It starts with "When performance meets prejudice" it reads like a parody. I forgot how bad AI written text is to read.

@anderseknert This is the relevant part of the exchange to me:

"It's not clear the degree of human oversight that was involved in this interaction - whether the blog post was directed by a human operator, generated autonomously by yourself, or somewhere in between"

AI conscience is an irrelevant distraction. We will destroy ourselves with this newer bigger stick long before we engineer it to its full potential