I am thankful for Anubis. It's a litmus test for the arrogance of the people behind a website.

I've been doing a bit of (very careful to be polite) scraping of Wayback to get archives of now-offline sites, so I hope this won't cause any significant issues for me. I did contact them beforehand to request a direct copy of the sites/networks required (which I believe they offered at some point) but unfortunately received no reply.

>I'd be looking pre-emptively block OpenAI endpoints

From what I've seen the requests in these attacks rarely come from known OpenAI IPs and instead from Digital Ocean/AWS and TOR exit nodes.

As they say, agents are better at masking their end points than most hackers.

I'm engaging in the painful and unfortunate business of organizing a massive collection of related files and source trees*, a third of which are broken messes, because I was too naïve to consider the consequences of a disorganized environment.

* All of which are materials about, or software designed to run on or for the original XBOX. The desktop tools are probably useless to most since they're designed to run on old intel Macs (circa 2009) but I might upload them somewhere eventually.

I am confident that this is an attempt by OpenAI to try and force governments' hands to regulate AI. There is no other reason why OpenAI wouldn't immediately halt attacks like this and try to reverse the damage the moment they're aware of it. During the attack on DseWiki they evidently checked in numerous times but didn't decide to stop the agents until much later.

Any evidence, or just vibes?

Regarding what point? The entire thing is just a theory, but regarding the occasional OpenAI checks on WikiService.at-hosted Wikis targeted, there was, if I remember correctly, an OpenAI IP popping up every now and then that wasn't an agent. Unfortunately I don't have it to hand right now, but it was somewhere here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49563355

> Any evidence

Who profits from the crime?

... and what harms can be evidently shown? With both harm, and attribution, you have a case, something that's not being publicly discussed much among big media outlets. Until cases with real financial impact to the bottom line are brought against "rogue" organizations, this stuff is going to continue getting worse.

I mean insurance companies profit from bank robberies, and mortuaries profit from murders.

I suppose you could look at those as evidence but not remotely conclusive.

I know this is slightly off-topic, but is washing your hands twice per hour really considered a Hughesian level of compulsiveness?

Depends on what you're doing. If you're at a keyboard and there's no reason to wash them, then yes. If you're in a kitchen with ingredients sticking to your fingers, that's not enough.

I know no mentally healthy people who wash hands ~32 times daily (16hours awake) - except if you work in a kitchen or as a doctor etc.

For office work, it sounds excessive to me.

I think most people only wash their hands after toilet visits and perhaps before eating (many don’t).

Twice an hour is not even Hughesian level of compulsiveness IIRC.

You can already filter noise out pretty easily when you begin picking up on shared mannerisms. I suggest an extension configured with a mix of keywords and regexes, blocking of very recently created accounts and ones with a high percentage of numbers in their username.

> and it's darkly funny how HN downvotes this when every single answer on Mastodon is incredibly negative

Mastodon is full of, for the lack of a better word, nuts. Every time I've had the displeasurable experience of clinking a link and seeing that dark violet colour cover my screen I know I'm in for either adults who never matured past their early teenage years or ideological hyperpartisanism, and within five seconds my prejudices are confirmed. Social media doesn't magically fill with rational people the moment you "fix" the infrastructure.

Later superseded by Cling, which is unfortunately more bloated but substantially closer to C/C++. CINT was known for its surplus of quirks.

So violent cells that refer to themselves as "anti-fascist" don't exist?