So the original blogger got slandered by an LLM agent, then got slandered again by a human journalist who used an LLM agent to write the article about him getting slandered by an LLM agent? How ironic.

But, does that mean he got slandered twice by an LLM agent or once by an agent and once by a human? Or was he technically slandered 3 times? Twice by agents and a third time by the journalist? New questions for the new agentic society.

He was only slandered once, by the LLM Agent. The Ars Technica article had presented paraphrases that it falsely attributed as direct quotes, and was therefore factually incorrect reporting. But it was not defamatory by any reasonable standard. Slander isn't just a synonym of "lie".

No, the journalist came in and slandered the LLM Twice and Jim Fell.

"Who are you, and how did you lose your job?"

"I'm an AI reporter. And, I'm an AI reporter."

4 times, you forgot the owner of the bot that did the PR.

Indeed, you’re right.

Wait, in what way the original blogger got slandered by an LLM agent?

It literally wrote a blog post [supposedly on its own initiative] trying to gin up outrage at open source maintainer after he denied the LLM's pull request.

Here's the original write-up of the incident:

https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...

And which part of that blog post is slander?

I guess countless Iranians dying in the process doesn’t matter at all? As long as the Americans are killing them from far away, it’s all good?

Isn't it always this to be the case?

Yes. Just because you like the saying doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Then the word doesn’t mean anything.

If something causes harm, I’m allowed to dislike it.

“Phobia” is an irrational fear. For the Iranian people, it’s perfectly rational.

Yet another very recent account on HN claiming to be Persian and speaking about things on the ground in Iran. Can’t you guys at least try a little harder to be convincing?

Not only the current administration, no US administration in the recent past or foreseeable future will not be okay with fighting wars for Israel at the cost of American lives and wealth. Some might hesitate or push back more than others, but the end result is the same.

He did not make that claim and even said criticism of China’s abuses is warranted. Zionist shill.

And they’ve blurred it so much and thrown around the accusation so frequently and with so little hesitancy that many people are starting to simply not care anymore.

I agree about Israel fast losing support among the general public here but the idea of a less accommodating executive or legislative branch in the US for Israel is unthinkable. Not unless the system is changed from the ground up in dramatic fashion. The two most relevant branches of government in this country are completely beholden to Israel and anybody denying it is a zionist shill.

For a Persian you have very US republican boomer speaking patterns. And of course a very recent account.

> For a Persian you have very US republican boomer speaking patterns.

Most Persians I know will support just about anyone who will go against the regime, there were huge protests all over the world recently by the Iranian diaspora calling for the regime to be destroyed after tens of thousands of protesters were murdered by the regime all over Iran.

I presume its just an Iranian living in the west? Just look at the Miami Cubans cheering on the total energy blockade killing Cuba right now, its not entirely unusual for immigrants to sound like US republican boomers sadly.

You guys really like revising history in realtime, huh? As if we didn’t live through that era ourselves. It was never a remote secret that Israel kept pushing the US to attack Iraq and had done so for years before 9/11, which Iraq had no part in anyhow.