Unfortunately, according to the article:

> Giovannini has participated in discussions at least as far back as 2018, and his activity in Bugzilla goes back to at least 2016. He does not appear to have been a particularly active contributor to the project, but his involvement clearly predates the agentic AI era. Whether his account is now being operated by a human attacker, an agentic AI, or a mix of both, it has a legitimate history prior to its recent activity.

So people would have to not only verify the age of Giovanni’s accounts, but judge whether his behaviour was normal.

In the entire linked article, where is the explanation for what a savings account is? Most of the early paragraphs are just waffling about how “Types of Accounts” are important. I’m pretty sure I read the phrase “money is emotional” before even getting to any description of any type of account. The word “savings” almost never appears and none of the instances seemed to define a savings account.

Honestly, is this content written by AI? In my opinion it’s acceptable to use AI to replace the boilerplate HTML, JavaScript and CSS of your site. But using AI for the actual writing risks turning your “educational tool” into a tool for misinformation.

EDIT: according to Pangram, 100% of the first two paragraphs are AI generated. Which is not a surprise at all, I don’t see how a human tasked with describing types of bank accounts would struggle this hard.

In comparison CodeBerg [1] and SourceHut [2] both offer Git hosting but don't merely describe themselves as "GitHub but X".

[0] https://gitdot.io/faq

[1] https://codeberg.org/

[2] https://sourcehut.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukbang

When I first saw the 26k changes statistic I was shocked. It made me think a large chunk of code running on people’s machines was AI-generated.

But the knowledge that a lot of the changes might be testsuite changes made me change my perspective. If for instance 25k of the changes were test changes and only 1k of the changes actually affected the .so and other artifacts used downstream, that would be a lot less dramatic.

I haven’t reviewed the code, only the messages, so I don’t know if these changes were removing or adding test cases. And there are a minority of Claude-assisted changes which are not listed as tests.

https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commits/master/

Honestly, why? If AI actually becomes capable of replacing large sections of the workforce, why wouldn’t a business composed entirely of AI “employees” outcompete their rivals?

Out of the four companies listed, Google is the one whose survival I’d bet on.

> I'd be absolutely thrilled to e.g. not have to interact with the Uber app and all its dark patterns if there were somebody or something I could trust to competently represent my interests.

Is there any reason to expect that commercial LLMs will avoid fine print, dark patterns, or acting against their users interests?

Yes, a thousand times yes. Freedom of speech/expression should be a freedom granted to humans. We extend it to corporations based on the practical reality that human speech often requires corporate support to be hosted and published.

But as far as I know, AI vendors haven’t claimed that their models represent the views of their founders, employees or any people at all. If we censor AI, which human voice are we censoring?

If you want a specific example: where do those three pillars at the start come from? Why three and not four? Are all those three of equal importance, to the point where all three are pillars?

Furthermore, why are you offloading the task of understanding AI risk to an AI? That’s ironic to the point of self-parody.

Do you have any suggestions for identifying AI writing, other than relying on intuition or going through the points of Wikipedia's list [0]?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing