I'm not so quick to label him an asshole. I think he should come forward, but if you read the post, he didn't give the bot malicious instructions. He was trying to contribute to science. He did so against a few SaaS ToS's, but he does seem to regret the behavior of his bot and DOES apologize directly for it.
donkey_brains|12 days ago
Real apologies don’t come with disclaimers!
mrandish|12 days ago
netsharc|12 days ago
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jun/29/learning-how...
Just noticed, the first word of the whole text is "First, ...". So, the apology is not even the actual first..
seanhunter|11 days ago
“If…. X then I’m sorry” is not an apology. It’s weasel-worded BS is what it is.
4gotunameagain|11 days ago
This person views the world as their playground, with no realisation of effect and consequences. As far as I'm concerned, that's an asshole.
nemomarx|12 days ago
I guess the question is, does this kind of thing rise to the level of malicious if given free access and let run long enough?
block_dagger|12 days ago
zozbot234|12 days ago
skeledrew|12 days ago
phyzome|10 days ago
"...if I harmed you". Conditional apologies like that are usually bullshit, and in this case it's especially ridiculous because the victim already explicitly laid out the harms in a widely reported blog post.
Also, telling a bot to update itself unsupervised and giving it wide internet access is itself a negligent act (in the legal sense) if not outright malicious.