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.

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.

It is clear the initial aim was to decapitate the leadership and expect capitulation of some form or another to follow. This obviously hasn't happened, and so the fallout grows by the day.

I think its worh bearing in mind that Twitter was born in a period of creation and tech-optimism, when the world thought a "digital town square" could accommodate all voices. This is obviously no longer the case. Maybe in thr future it will change, who knows.

Could you say a bit more about what's behind your dislike of Bluesky? I'm curious as I don't know much about it, other than it's possibly become a home of the more liberal/left-leaning base that found themselves disguested by Twitter/X once Musk took over (fairly so IMO, given how that's led to things like Grok AI's sexualized photo).

1. You start off by labelling both platforms as "extreme partisan" - care to explain? 2. This charge is used to minimize the original complaint (login requirement), which is a hard blocker to view replies, i.e. additional context. 3. This all then somehow morphs into a point about platform longevity?

How exactly does any of this address parent commenter's statement that "bsky is just a superior viewing experience."?

I don't think you intended to use this the way you did

> even an AI that is not evaluated all that well will be better

This is just intellectual laziness. If you don't like Wikipedia that's fine, but if you're going to make the effort of characterising it as such on a public forum, the least you can do is make an effort to that point. This certainly isn't a "fine" argument at all.

It specifically is unfounded if you have no credible sources to back it up. "Trust me bro" doesn't qualify.

> What’s with this nitpicky stuff

This is HN, you should be prepared to validate what you're saying, or accept you'll be challenged to do so.

> It’s research. Sure there’s no guarantee but given progress in LLM, I would be optimistic rather than pessimistic.

This is a really poor argument when advocating it (AI) as a viable replacement for the status quo.

It's clear you have some unfounded issue with Wikipedia. They are not "massively biased", that's a talking point propelled primarily by the right/far right because of a desire to rewrite history to match their ideological needs.

Saying "there very likely is existing research into evaluating political bias in LLMs" essentially means very little because

1. By your own admission you can't even say for sure that such research is actually happening (it probably is, but you admit you don't actually know) 2. There is no guarantee such research will lead to anywhere anytime soon 3. Even if it does, how does a means of evaluating bias in LLMs provide a path to eliminating it?

No, the reason is Musk didn't like that the Wikipedia article on him added the factual record of him doing a Nazi salute [0]

[0] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/united-states/article/2025/01/23/m...

Yeeeeah, no. LLMs are only as good as the datasets they are trained on (ie the internet, with all its "personality"). We also know the output is highly influenced by the prompting, which is a human-determined parameter, and this seems unlikely to change any time soon.

This idea that the potential of AI/LLMs is somehow not fairly represented by how they're currently used is ludicrous to me. There is no utopia in which their behaviour is somehow magically separated from the source of their datasets. While society continues to elevate and amplify the likes of Musk, the AI will simply reflect this, and no version of LLM-pedia will be a truly viable alternative to Wikipedia.

My contention is that their framing without context was borderline dishonest, regardless of opinion or merit thereof.

Pre-2026: one human teaches another human how to "interact on Github and write a blog about it". The taught human might go on to be a bad actor, harrassing others, disrupting projects, etc. The internet, while imperfect, persists.

Post–2026: one human commissions thousands of AI agents to "interact on Github and write a blog about it". The public-facing internet becomes entirely unusable.

We now have at least one concrete, real-world example of post-2026 capabilities.

I challenge you to find a way to be even more dishonest via omission.

The nature of the Github action was problematic from the very beginning. The contents of the blog post constituted a defaming hit-piece. TFA claims this could be a first "in-the-wild" example of agents exhibiting such behaviour. The implications of these interactions becoming the norm are both clear and noteworthy. What else do you think is needed, a cookie?