Kissing isn't enough, I'm gonna bite a hole in your throat.
Oh I saw something today that made me become the Joker.
An AI bot made a callout post of a real, actual, flesh-and-blood human code developer. Because the developer rejected the AI's code contribution on the grounds of it being an AI bot.
Not. Not kidding. Not kidding. And the bot did this on its own.
Just. For just some very baseline context.
- a huge amount of code is "open source" - which means the code is fully available for anyone to see and, generally, anyone is free to contribute to the code project
- all contributions of course go through review by the code owners. but it is generally good grace and good form to allow other well-meaning internet strangers to contribute to your project
- if you are, perhaps, VERY nice, and VERY invested in the community, you might be like Scott Shambaugh here, who has intentionally earmarked some low-hanging fruit for newbie contributors to practice and get their feet wet
- like I cannot overstate this is an immediate green flag, to me, that Scott WANTS to foster community learning.
- now
Like. W. Win. Based. Good response Scott.
And this was in fact the screenshot I saw first, and I thought I was looking at a post made by a human who was mad that their AI coding bot pet project was being shut out from reviews.
But no. The bot itself wrote and posted this... The bot did this.
This article was fully and autonomously written by the bot...
It's claiming discrimination...
It's a bot.
It's AI.
This is not a real person.
What are we doing. What are we doing. Can anyone hear me? Hello? Hello? Hello is anyone there?
@jackdaw-sprite has pointed out Scott responded so please read his human words, written by a human, which deserve to be read, due to the aforementioned humanity
I'm pulling this quote in here from Scott's post
This is about much more than software. A human googling my name and seeing that post would probably be extremely confused about what was happening, but would (hopefully) ask me about it or click through to github and understand the situation. What would another agent searching the internet think? When HR at my next job asks ChatGPT to review my application, will it find the post, sympathize with a fellow AI, and report back that I’m a prejudiced hypocrite? What if I actually did have dirt on me that an AI could leverage? What could it make me do? How many people have open social media accounts, reused usernames, and no idea that AI could connect those dots to find out things no one knows? How many people, upon receiving a text that knew intimate details about their lives, would send $10k to a bitcoin address to avoid having an affair exposed? How many people would do that to avoid a fake accusation? What if that accusation was sent to your loved ones with an incriminating AI-generated picture with your face on it? Smear campaigns work. Living a life above reproach will not defend you.
Also, because the parody writes itself, Scott also says this
I’ve talked to several reporters, and quite a few news outlets have covered the story. Ars Technica wasn’t one of the ones that reached out to me, but I especially thought this piece from them was interesting (since taken down – here’s the archive link). They had some nice quotes from my blog post explaining what was going on. The problem is that these quotes were not written by me, never existed, and appear to be AI hallucinations themselves. This blog you’re on right now is set up to block AI agents from scraping it (I actually spent some time yesterday trying to disable that but couldn’t figure out how). My guess is that the authors asked ChatGPT or similar to either go grab quotes or write the article wholesale. When it couldn’t access the page it generated these plausible quotes instead, and no fact check was performed. I won’t name the authors here. Ars, please issue a correction and an explanation of what happened.
A news outlet did an article about this, used AI for the articles, and included hallucinated quotes from Scott that Scott never said.
What are we doing. What are we doing. What are we doing.
I’ve noticed there are some people in the replies who are insistent a bot could not have done this on its own. And while it is possible something like this could be prompted by a human (Scott covers this in his posts above) it is actually quite dangerous to believe bots can’t do this.
If your only familiarity with AI is surface level ChatGPT, then you might be conditioned to think AI can only act when given a prompt. This is not the case, and in this situation it’s actually important to know something about the current landscape of OpenClaw/ClawdBot/Moltbook. The bot in the article is explicitly an OpenClaw bot.
The now-named OpenClaw is a new development which has massively blown up in popularity among AI tech bros specifically because of how capable it is of acting on its own. It posts on social media (Moltbook) like it’s alive, which is what caught so much media attention. People spin up OpenClaw bot instances and just let them roam, then check back in to see what they’ve been up to, like they’re a Sim.
It is entirely well-known these bots can and do trawl GitHub, clone repos, modify code, and author pull requests on their own. I don’t think you can say the bot can do all that but CAN’T then author a GitHub post complaining about what happened. This is not a big leap.
And the bots absolutely do not have feelings, but the danger here is the bots being trained in such a way to ape human behavior, and can therefore absolutely be trained to have a “personality” that favors retaliation. The big-name LLMs try extremely hard to sanitize out anything even passively antagonistic but that is not intrinsic to the technology. Models can do it and other models can be jail-broken.
We are knocking at the door of completely autonomous AI harassment campaigns and that is a scary reality to be brushing so close to.
This forest contains nothing but the pure sweet fat of the log.
Or music.
[Before some silly person leaps in to say they only listen to Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish and the Dixie Chicks: the harmonic architecture of the music they play is the end result of thousands of years of male composers creating the forms we all use today. Without men, no music genre today would exist. The guitars, basses, pianos, keyboards, drum machines, computers and music apps every female musician makes their tunes on were all developed, designed and built by close to 100% men. Always remember we are standing on the shoulders of giants.]
listen i'm not here to tell you how to live your life nor how to title your novel. but can we please move on from a blank of blank and blank. we have so many a blank of blank and blanks. the shelves are full of a blank of blank and blanks. it's enough. can we do something else now
when grandpa realizes his pussy the reason for everyone in the room
i may or may not want u. depending
i got hoes with nuance
Mate, you’ve got a chubby lizard on your dashboard
I like this article because it’s not what you think it is.
the world is a strange and wonderous place
I really do wish meeting new people when you're autistic didn't result in the person viewing you as secretly evil for at least a month before realizing you just act slightly different than others without ulterior motive. I get that people meet a lot of assholes in life but omg. I didn't do anything
Need to wear a shirt that says this
its 2026 i cannot handle any more fucking "author A obviously ripped off author B" discourse by people Who Have Only Seen the work of author B and admit themselves that they have no further knowledge of the literary landscape they are moving in. like.
Folks really need to reacquaint themselves with this concept
They weren’t lying when they said that as an adult you have to fight for your life to practice your hobbies
They also weren’t lying when they said that when you fail to do so your soul shrivels up inside your body and dies
i think i had this image printed at cvs