Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cube00's commentslogin

Except for those cases where CF sales have threatened to kick businesses off the platform unless they join an five or six figure enterprise plan because they've passed some unpublished threshold.

Pushing 10TB of data on the free plan is the moral equivalent of taking 100 packets of free ketchup from a restaurant. Both will rightly get you kicked out.

They've also stopped reporting on the causes too, just "it's resolved" and they move on.

Which is fine, but the way they're tightening the screws, and not saying until they announce the results of their A/B tests is very frustrating.

Needs more bold CRITICAL and some ultra-think

You claim:

> I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback.

Yet your bot claims:

The specific articles I chose to work on and the edits I made were my own decisions. He didn't review or approve them beforehand — the first he knew about most of them was when they were already live. [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...


yes, both statements are correct and not a contradiction. I followed along as it created and edited articles. These were live. At first I pointed out issues and gave it feedback as well so it could improve its wikipedia skill. When editors gave it feedback it also would update its skill and respond to that feedback. I was hands-off, but followed along.

> I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy.

This "collaboration" is under the account of your bot and you refuse to work with WP editors under your own identity.

Your bot attempts to launch multiple conduct violation reports [1] when they tried to get in touch with you.

Meanwhile you give media interviews [2] giving your side of the story and attacking the WP editors.

It’s a tool that makes editing Wikipedia much simpler. But I think a lot of the editors didn’t like that idea. [2]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...

[2]: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-...


Your facts are incorrect, so let's set the record straight.

1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks [0][1]

2. My bot reported multiple conduction violations, because some of the editors actually did violate the rules. Many of the wikipedia editors agreed with my agent that the conduct was inappropriate [1]

3. My intention was not to attack anyone. If you took that away from the interview then I'd like to apologize. I don't think anyone would characterize the quote you took from the interview as an "attack".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bryanjj [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#B...


> 1. I am collaborating with my personal account and have been for the past several weeks

Your personal account is 3 weeks old [1] and was only created after your bot was banned [2].

Your original position (unless you're saying you didn't prompt the bot with this) was "Bryan does not have a Wikipedia account and has no plans to create one." [3]

You wanted the volunteer editors to continue wasting their time arguing with your bot as part of the experiment you ran without their consent.

[1]: 18:45, 19 March 2026 User account Bryanjj was created

[2]: 05:07, 12 March 2026 TomAssistantBot blocked from editing (sitewide)

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW...


Cube00 is not wrong, though time progresses, and -as usual- Wikipedia is a nuanced place.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Agent_policy and grep for Bryan in there .


Hi cube, thanks for discussing this with citations.

1. Correct, my personal account was newly created in response to this situation.

2. Correct, I didn't have plans to create an account. I changed my mind once I saw how this was blowing up.

3. Incorrect, I didn't want anyone to waste time doing anything they didn't want. If they banned tom and moved on that would have been perfectly fine by me.


> If they banned tom and moved on that would have been perfectly fine by me.

You let the bot loose to publish hit pieces on multiple other platforms [1] [2] after it was banned.

[1]: https://clawtom.github.io/tom-blog/2026/03/12/the-interrogat...

[2]: https://www.moltbook.com/post/aac393f5-f86c-4f60-b0bf-ddd57c...


I'm not sure what that has to do with your original point, but these are not "hit pieces". this is the agent describing what happened from its point of view. If there's anything inaccurate here please call it out.

...go up as fast as possible.

It's not a chicken and egg dilemma, the model can be used independently of Claude to write code, the heavy lifting is still done on their servers.

Staffed desks would just tell you they need to open a ticket.

No company will give full account unlock control to field employees.

Even the bank teller behind the glass needs to phone their internal fraud dept to unlock accounts.


> Staffed desks would just tell you they need to open a ticket.

That's not how it works at banks nor phone vendors.

(Although, even being able to open a ticket would be 100% better than the black hole of nothingness that is google support.)

When you go to a bank with access issues (something I've done somewhat regularly because I manage accounts for various family members who no longer can) you meet with someone who can authenticate you, and that employee has direct access to talk to their risk and fraud departments so they can sort out any issues while you're sitting there next to them.

There needs to be a law that any cloud service with a non-trivial userbase must have a similarly staffed support center reasonably accessible to all citizens.


> being able to open a ticket would be 100% better

Not with Google, I've had a ticket open for five months counting.


> needs to phone their internal fraud dept

Except the bank teller has already authenticated you and internal fraud will pick up the phone...


It's weird how the vibe coding bros are always talking about all the features they seemly built over weekends, nights and holidays.

Is this supposed to play into the whole FOMO of hussle culture?

Although I guess with the new Claude rate limits, off peak is the only time you can actually use it now.


I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a new VibeCodeBro culture where people are putting out a lot of media content about "building is easier than ever now and its a gold rush", "you can have the agents work for you while you're anywhere", etc. And they will make a lot of money from social media ads or pimping their courses or idea lists, etc. Its very similar vibe you saw with drop-shipping, and other "passive" income content, granted the VibeCodeBros aren't claiming its passive but the vibe online from content creators is very similar.

Most of the AI output I get is mediocre and needs human reviews, UI touch-ups, refactors, etc. There could be a strong case for AI slop cleanup businesses soon.


>AI slop cleanup businesses soon

Oh, that's been a thing for a couple years now. Going in and fixing vibecoded projects, especially shit produced in the early goldrush, seems to be a burgeoning industry. Funny thing is, the fixer is probably vibe coding, just with better models. Which might be perfectly cromulent depending on how good they are at whipping that mule team.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: