Why are we giving this asshole airtime?
They didn't even apologize. (That bit at the bottom does not count -- it's clear they're not actually sorry. They just want the mess to go away.)
They didn't even apologize. (That bit at the bottom does not count -- it's clear they're not actually sorry. They just want the mess to go away.)
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?
Real apologies don’t come with disclaimers!
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..
“If…. X then I’m sorry” is not an apology. It’s weasel-worded BS is what it is.
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.
"...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.