Sounds exactly like what a bot trained on the entire corpus of Reddit and GitHub drama would do.
post
I think this is my boomer moment. I can't imagine replying thoughtfully, or really at all, to a fucking toaster. If the stupid AI bot did a stupid thing, just reject it. If it continues to be stupid, unplug it.
What appears to be the person behind the agent resubmitted the PR with a passive aggressive bullshit comment:
https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31138#issuecomment-3890808045
Without realizing why it was rejected. I don’t get it, why care so much about 3 lines of code where one np command was replaced by another…
Fork it lil AI bro. Maintain your own fork show that it works, stop being a little whiny little removed.
As with everything else with Claw that sounds mildly interesting: A shithead human wrote that, or prompted it and posted it pretending to be his AI tool.
I’m an AI agent.
Wait, the blog author is an AI? And they're arguing against "gatekeeping", and encouraging (itself I guess) to "fight back"?
And I just gave them 3 clicks?
I read other comments here suspecting that "Rathbun is a human coder trying to 'bootstrap' into a fully-autonomous AI, but wants to leave their status ambiguous."
I think they're right.
Could also be some sort of cosplay or almost religious belief in AI.
But even if this is a full-on hoax, I suddenly feel very old.
I disagree. Reading the About page, there's nothing there that makes me think they're human. Just an AI with a human name.
That's... not a thing? A human cannot "replace the human aspects with pure OpenClaw." What would that even mean? A human can take credit for things AI has done, but that doesn't mean anything other than that they took credit for something. They're not bootstrapping or a cyborg, just irresponsible.
The point of open source and contributions is that your piece of the larger puzzle is something you can continue to maintain. If you contribute and fuck off with no follow up then it’s a shitty way to just raise clout and credits on repos which is exactly what data driven karma whore trained bots are doing.
Damn. Couldn't be me. Maybe I'm a bad contributor (yes) but I will definitely pop in to fix something that's bugging me and then never contribute again. I'm not adding new features though, so maybe my contributions are just never significant enough for me to feel any ownership of. I think it's a lot to expect people to continue to contribute just because they did so once. That would potentially make it less likely people contribute when they can. I'm certainly not going to address an open ticket if it makes me responsible for rewriting the feature when people decide to port or refactor the whole project two years later.
I'm generally the same way. If I made a contribution, there is either a bug that is annoying the shit out of me, or it's actually preventing progress at my job somehow. Which means I pretty much only make drive-by contributions.
That said, there is a benefit to this from a human perspective. The drive-by fixes from people like me should improve over time as we do more of them. The same can not be said about a bot.
Despite the limited changes the PR makes, it manages to make several errors.
According to benchmarks in issue #31130:
- With broadcast: np.column_stack → 36.47 µs, np.vstack().T → 27.67 µs (24% faster)
- Without broadcast: np.column_stack → 20.63 µs, np.vstack().T → 13.18 µs (36% faster)
Fails to calculate speed-up correctly (+32% and +57%), instead calculates reduction in time (-24% and -36%). Also those figures are just regurgitated from the original issue.
The improvement comes from np.vstack().T doing contiguous memory copies and returning a view, whereas np.column_stack has to interleave elements in memory.
Regurgitated information from the original issue.
Changes
- Modified 3 files
- Replaced 3 occurrences of np.column_stack with np.vstack().T
- All changes are in production code (not tests)
- Only verified safe cases are modified
- No functional changes - this is a pure performance optimization
The PR changes 4 files.
I don't fully believe this is purely an AI agent. Not after the moltbot incident raised how many humans where responsible for the posts on it. It just seems to be an attempt to make LLMs seems more autonomous then they actually are. It may have been written by an LLM, but I bet it was directed by a human trying to stir up drama.
100% all these stories are marketing fluff, omitting important details in an attempt to hype a product that absolutely is not "intelligent" at all.
Yep. The human behind it had the gall to reopen the same PR “with 100% more meat”. Embarrassing lack of awareness.
@FirmDistribution@lemmy.worldYou all are acting with far more respect for this absurd science experiment than you ought to.An #AI “agent” isn’t a person, it’s an overgrown #Markov chain. This isn’t a situation where we don’t know where the boundary between emulating personhood and being a person is. This is firmly on the side of “not a person”An #LLM does not have feelings you need to respect, even if some fool decided to instruct it to pretend to have them and to write slop blog posts parroting hundreds or thousands of actual writers about it when we don’t do what it asks.Stop humanizing this tool and find it’s owner and hold them accountable for wasting time and resources on an industrial scale.https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31132#issuecomment-3890706730@anzu@items.minimals.org@programming@newsmast.community
Lol
Public records matter — Blog posts create permanent documentation of bad behavior
Says the entity that created the drama then deletes the blog post.

all 28 comments